| Swans Trust Meeting 19:37 - Dec 4 with 19893 views | Landore_Jack |
Don't forget there is a trust meeting tomorrow at 7:30 pm at the Liberty Stadium. |  |
| |  |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:23 - Dec 6 with 1330 views | waynekerr55 |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:21 - Dec 6 by swancity |
'From what you can gather'?
With respect, that implies you don't really know. You're basing you'r defensive remarks on hearsay and stuff that you would like to true. You don't know any facts so in that case it's best to form you're own opinion which is all that the rest of us are doing. Imo they should never have used Little. He may be a Swans fan. He may be a nice guy. He may be a good Solicitor. But the situation desperately demands independent review and guidance. And if that costs the going rate and on balance if there is a good chance of success then go for it. Just do it.
Stop defending something you have little idea about, excuse the pun. |
"Stop defending something you have little idea about"
Says Planet Swans and JA.net's village idiot  |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:23 - Dec 6 with 1324 views | swancity |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 23:14 - Dec 5 by blueytheblue |
Spending 1m to protect 23m is only the correct decision if you're 100 per cent sure you win.
Lose and it's a loss of 1m and more importantly time and press coverage. |
Don't be silly. How can you ever be 100% sure? |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:56 - Dec 6 with 1280 views | Darran |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:00 - Dec 6 by Pegojack |
I went to the meeting last night.
The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Trust Board who ran the AGM last night for a very informative event. I understand a lot more now than I did before. I also want to thank those guys and their colleagues for giving up their free time unstintingly on behalf of Swansea City fans and club. It is greatly appreciated, and the meeting said so as one last night by a vote of thanks.
The next thing I want to say is that I'm disgusted by the tone of this thread and the ill-informed opinions trotted out by the usual keyboard warriors whose only ability is to carp from the sidelines and do nothing practical.
The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed.
What we are talking about is the Articles of Association originally signed up to in 2002 by the original shareholders, i.e. the sellouts, and the Supporters Trust. What that says is that no shareholder has the right to sell his/her shares to one party without offering them equally to the other shareholders. That's all it said, and it was originally intended to stop one of the existing shareholders buying out other people and getting a controlling stake. We are talking here about a certain hotel owner.
What Phil pointed out about the sale to the Americans, and what most of you seem to be ignoring, is that the Supporters Trust didn't have the funds to buy any meaningful amount of those shares even if the Articles of Association were abided by, and the shares were offered to us. Probably not more than about 1%. Do you realize that this fact could seriously weaken our case in a court of law in terms of compensation or redress? Think about it before you spout off. Yes, we could have sought outside financial backing to buy 'on our behalf', but how practical would that have been? That would just be swapping one outside owner for another. So I understand the cautious approach of the Trust in committing our war chest of approx. £850k to a legal action which is not black and white, no pun intended.
The fact is, we have been stitched up and sold down the river by a bunch of guys who proclaimed themselves Jacks to the core, but have turned out to be a bunch of greedy barst*rds. There is no easy way to get back at them, and no quick way to win back control of our club, but the Trust is doing their best and proceeding with caution and intelligence. If you need to lash out, I suggest you attack those responsible, not those who are opposing them on our behalf. |
Superb post,I've been saying this for weeks on here and the biggest feeling of disillusionment for me in the whole debacle is the fact that so many people are still going after the Trust (see this thread) and giving the real culprits an easy ride. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:00 - Dec 6 with 1280 views | costalotta |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:56 - Dec 6 by Darran |
Superb post,I've been saying this for weeks on here and the biggest feeling of disillusionment for me in the whole debacle is the fact that so many people are still going after the Trust (see this thread) and giving the real culprits an easy ride. |
INdeed.
Heres the question though, As they represent the fans do you think they should be seen to lead that charge against the 'real culprits' in an organised way? |  | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:06 - Dec 6 with 1270 views | Darran |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:00 - Dec 6 by costalotta |
INdeed.
Heres the question though, As they represent the fans do you think they should be seen to lead that charge against the 'real culprits' in an organised way? |
Yes I do and I'm sure they will if they need too. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:10 - Dec 6 with 1261 views | costalotta |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:06 - Dec 6 by Darran |
Yes I do and I'm sure they will if they need too. |
I hope you're right.
Maybe it should already be happening or we should at be pretty close to it? | | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:16 - Dec 6 with 1247 views | RebMegJack |
Can I just add from last night that the ex board member are saying that we've broke the SHA in the past one example Phil said was we borrowed £50k in the championship without the trusts agreement.(something's no along them lines)
If that's their defence in a court of law wow. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:18 - Dec 6 with 1241 views | monmouth |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:06 - Dec 6 by Darran |
Yes I do and I'm sure they will if they need too. |
This is my point too. Except that I think that they need to.
I'd be inclned to go after the culprits in a far more aggressively public way. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:24 - Dec 6 with 1225 views | costalotta |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:18 - Dec 6 by monmouth |
This is my point too. Except that I think that they need to.
I'd be inclned to go after the culprits in a far more aggressively public way. |
For sure...
It simply has to happen pretty soon IMO. The longer it's left the more apathy there will be and the less impact it will make. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 10:25]
| | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:35 - Dec 6 with 1199 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Why is it taking so long to decide whether we take legal action or not?
Make a decision ffs. If the advice is not to take legal action then fine, move on to putting pressure on the sell outs in every way possible with a concerted PR offensive.
I realise that getting counsel's advice takes some time but this is dragging on and on. Meanwhile people are getting disillusioned with not only the situation at the club on and off the field, but also with the Trust for its perceived inactivity coming on top of the Huw Close revelations. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:39 - Dec 6 with 1183 views | Landore_Jack |
Phil did reiterate that the Trust would like to get to 25%. One thing that struck a cord with me was the selling of Mel Nurse's shares. Mel wanted to give his 5 percent to the Trust but this was not allowed. Instead, an agreement was made that all existing shareholders would purchase the shares. This increased the shares owned by the Trust from 19.9% to 21.1%. It would be nice if LD, MM, HJ, BK handed back one percent of those shares to the Trust so they could get to 25%. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 10:40]
| |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:46 - Dec 6 with 1162 views | monmouth |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:39 - Dec 6 by Landore_Jack |
Phil did reiterate that the Trust would like to get to 25%. One thing that struck a cord with me was the selling of Mel Nurse's shares. Mel wanted to give his 5 percent to the Trust but this was not allowed. Instead, an agreement was made that all existing shareholders would purchase the shares. This increased the shares owned by the Trust from 19.9% to 21.1%. It would be nice if LD, MM, HJ, BK handed back one percent of those shares to the Trust so they could get to 25%. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 10:40]
|
These people are just bastards. They won't give away one dollar. They hate the Trust, and I reckon they always have done from day one, including one greedy fat hog that would be nothing without using the Trust shamelessly to worm his way onto the gravy train. Plus of course someone that got an OBE for self promoting a model that he clearly didn't believe in for one second.
Bunch of c***s | |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:11 - Dec 6 with 1106 views | max936 |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:39 - Dec 6 by Landore_Jack |
Phil did reiterate that the Trust would like to get to 25%. One thing that struck a cord with me was the selling of Mel Nurse's shares. Mel wanted to give his 5 percent to the Trust but this was not allowed. Instead, an agreement was made that all existing shareholders would purchase the shares. This increased the shares owned by the Trust from 19.9% to 21.1%. It would be nice if LD, MM, HJ, BK handed back one percent of those shares to the Trust so they could get to 25%. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 10:40]
|
Why wasn't it allowed, because they had to be shared out?
Yet the sellout shysters were allowed to go down the route that they have, that can't be right ffs mun. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:14 - Dec 6 with 1088 views | Smellyplumz |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:39 - Dec 6 by Landore_Jack |
Phil did reiterate that the Trust would like to get to 25%. One thing that struck a cord with me was the selling of Mel Nurse's shares. Mel wanted to give his 5 percent to the Trust but this was not allowed. Instead, an agreement was made that all existing shareholders would purchase the shares. This increased the shares owned by the Trust from 19.9% to 21.1%. It would be nice if LD, MM, HJ, BK handed back one percent of those shares to the Trust so they could get to 25%. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 10:40]
|
Nice! Lol, it would be nice if you have me your house, car and any savings, ain't gunna happen is it. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:17 - Dec 6 with 1079 views | Darran |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 10:39 - Dec 6 by Landore_Jack |
Phil did reiterate that the Trust would like to get to 25%. One thing that struck a cord with me was the selling of Mel Nurse's shares. Mel wanted to give his 5 percent to the Trust but this was not allowed. Instead, an agreement was made that all existing shareholders would purchase the shares. This increased the shares owned by the Trust from 19.9% to 21.1%. It would be nice if LD, MM, HJ, BK handed back one percent of those shares to the Trust so they could get to 25%. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 10:40]
|
Under the new 'illegally' signed shareholders agreement I don't believe they can. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:19 - Dec 6 with 1074 views | Smellyplumz |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:00 - Dec 6 by Pegojack |
I went to the meeting last night.
The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Trust Board who ran the AGM last night for a very informative event. I understand a lot more now than I did before. I also want to thank those guys and their colleagues for giving up their free time unstintingly on behalf of Swansea City fans and club. It is greatly appreciated, and the meeting said so as one last night by a vote of thanks.
The next thing I want to say is that I'm disgusted by the tone of this thread and the ill-informed opinions trotted out by the usual keyboard warriors whose only ability is to carp from the sidelines and do nothing practical.
The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed.
What we are talking about is the Articles of Association originally signed up to in 2002 by the original shareholders, i.e. the sellouts, and the Supporters Trust. What that says is that no shareholder has the right to sell his/her shares to one party without offering them equally to the other shareholders. That's all it said, and it was originally intended to stop one of the existing shareholders buying out other people and getting a controlling stake. We are talking here about a certain hotel owner.
What Phil pointed out about the sale to the Americans, and what most of you seem to be ignoring, is that the Supporters Trust didn't have the funds to buy any meaningful amount of those shares even if the Articles of Association were abided by, and the shares were offered to us. Probably not more than about 1%. Do you realize that this fact could seriously weaken our case in a court of law in terms of compensation or redress? Think about it before you spout off. Yes, we could have sought outside financial backing to buy 'on our behalf', but how practical would that have been? That would just be swapping one outside owner for another. So I understand the cautious approach of the Trust in committing our war chest of approx. £850k to a legal action which is not black and white, no pun intended.
The fact is, we have been stitched up and sold down the river by a bunch of guys who proclaimed themselves Jacks to the core, but have turned out to be a bunch of greedy barst*rds. There is no easy way to get back at them, and no quick way to win back control of our club, but the Trust is doing their best and proceeding with caution and intelligence. If you need to lash out, I suggest you attack those responsible, not those who are opposing them on our behalf. |
Firstly well done for attending the meeting, I couldn't make it due to illness, secondly I think your being a little unfair for attacking fans in your post because what you have to remember is that the points you have made have not really been communicated very well to the fans by the trust. The way I've seen this situation for a while is that we have been royally bummed and there's very little we can do about it so why the hell don't the trust just come out and admit this so that all fans are fully aware of the futility of it.? | |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:27 - Dec 6 with 1062 views | TheResurrection |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:00 - Dec 6 by Pegojack |
I went to the meeting last night.
The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Trust Board who ran the AGM last night for a very informative event. I understand a lot more now than I did before. I also want to thank those guys and their colleagues for giving up their free time unstintingly on behalf of Swansea City fans and club. It is greatly appreciated, and the meeting said so as one last night by a vote of thanks.
The next thing I want to say is that I'm disgusted by the tone of this thread and the ill-informed opinions trotted out by the usual keyboard warriors whose only ability is to carp from the sidelines and do nothing practical.
The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed.
What we are talking about is the Articles of Association originally signed up to in 2002 by the original shareholders, i.e. the sellouts, and the Supporters Trust. What that says is that no shareholder has the right to sell his/her shares to one party without offering them equally to the other shareholders. That's all it said, and it was originally intended to stop one of the existing shareholders buying out other people and getting a controlling stake. We are talking here about a certain hotel owner.
What Phil pointed out about the sale to the Americans, and what most of you seem to be ignoring, is that the Supporters Trust didn't have the funds to buy any meaningful amount of those shares even if the Articles of Association were abided by, and the shares were offered to us. Probably not more than about 1%. Do you realize that this fact could seriously weaken our case in a court of law in terms of compensation or redress? Think about it before you spout off. Yes, we could have sought outside financial backing to buy 'on our behalf', but how practical would that have been? That would just be swapping one outside owner for another. So I understand the cautious approach of the Trust in committing our war chest of approx. £850k to a legal action which is not black and white, no pun intended.
The fact is, we have been stitched up and sold down the river by a bunch of guys who proclaimed themselves Jacks to the core, but have turned out to be a bunch of greedy barst*rds. There is no easy way to get back at them, and no quick way to win back control of our club, but the Trust is doing their best and proceeding with caution and intelligence. If you need to lash out, I suggest you attack those responsible, not those who are opposing them on our behalf. |
That’s one side argument, Mike, but the real truth in all this is the Trust should have made sure they were on the button throughout and to never, ever rule themselves out of any potential outcome or option.
I blame the sell outs for making sure they had Cooze exactly where they wanted him and I blame the Trust for not listening to strong voices stating quite clearly their set up was compromised, weak and at arms length. That, my friend is facking inexcusable.
Before anyone starts accusing me of being on some pathetic payroll, I’ll make my position clear on Jenkins, Morgan and Dineen, especially, as it’s these 3 I believe made the majority of the decisions down there. Their names are mud and what they once had and were loved for, the respect they had gained from all those years looking after our City’s Football Club, has gone up in flames. They will never feel safe in Swansea, they will always be looking over their shoulder and be regarded in exactly the same light as the City’s most hated villain, Tony Petty.
It’s as simple as that — Jenkins, Morgan, Dineen, Petty…. This is your legacy! What you are seeing now in front of your very eyes must be your worst nightmare and believe me, all of you, this will keep you up at nights and no luck will come your way.
You are scum and if this game wasn’t so important for us, the fans, not you kunts, you don’t even come into it, we’d be all over you. You won’t get an easy ride, in fact you will get almight hell and deserve it.
On the Trust, I am still sickened they let it get to this but now is not the time to listen to pacifying mails like SwanseaJill or you, Mike, sorry. Now is the time to put your foot down. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:31 - Dec 6 with 1053 views | blueytheblue |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:23 - Dec 6 by swancity |
Don't be silly. How can you ever be 100% sure? |
Little things like laws, evidence.
You know, the kind of things lawyers consider. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:32 - Dec 6 with 1052 views | DafyddHuw |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 09:00 - Dec 6 by Pegojack |
I went to the meeting last night.
The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Trust Board who ran the AGM last night for a very informative event. I understand a lot more now than I did before. I also want to thank those guys and their colleagues for giving up their free time unstintingly on behalf of Swansea City fans and club. It is greatly appreciated, and the meeting said so as one last night by a vote of thanks.
The next thing I want to say is that I'm disgusted by the tone of this thread and the ill-informed opinions trotted out by the usual keyboard warriors whose only ability is to carp from the sidelines and do nothing practical.
The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed.
What we are talking about is the Articles of Association originally signed up to in 2002 by the original shareholders, i.e. the sellouts, and the Supporters Trust. What that says is that no shareholder has the right to sell his/her shares to one party without offering them equally to the other shareholders. That's all it said, and it was originally intended to stop one of the existing shareholders buying out other people and getting a controlling stake. We are talking here about a certain hotel owner.
What Phil pointed out about the sale to the Americans, and what most of you seem to be ignoring, is that the Supporters Trust didn't have the funds to buy any meaningful amount of those shares even if the Articles of Association were abided by, and the shares were offered to us. Probably not more than about 1%. Do you realize that this fact could seriously weaken our case in a court of law in terms of compensation or redress? Think about it before you spout off. Yes, we could have sought outside financial backing to buy 'on our behalf', but how practical would that have been? That would just be swapping one outside owner for another. So I understand the cautious approach of the Trust in committing our war chest of approx. £850k to a legal action which is not black and white, no pun intended.
The fact is, we have been stitched up and sold down the river by a bunch of guys who proclaimed themselves Jacks to the core, but have turned out to be a bunch of greedy barst*rds. There is no easy way to get back at them, and no quick way to win back control of our club, but the Trust is doing their best and proceeding with caution and intelligence. If you need to lash out, I suggest you attack those responsible, not those who are opposing them on our behalf. |
Shadwell - "The main thing I learned last night, and I guess those demanding legal action aren't aware of, is that actual basis on which that would have to proceed."
Don't you think that we should all have been told this months and months ago?
The Trust's lack of communication is woeful. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:34 - Dec 6 with 1045 views | Landore_Jack |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:14 - Dec 6 by Smellyplumz |
Nice! Lol, it would be nice if you have me your house, car and any savings, ain't gunna happen is it. |
Probably not, but it will guarantee protection to the the Trust. At present, there is a strong possibility that the Trust can be diluted. The sellouts have made their millions. Handing over 4 percent would leave a legacy that the Trust will protected from other shareholders. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 11:36]
| |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:36 - Dec 6 with 1036 views | costalotta |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:27 - Dec 6 by TheResurrection |
That’s one side argument, Mike, but the real truth in all this is the Trust should have made sure they were on the button throughout and to never, ever rule themselves out of any potential outcome or option.
I blame the sell outs for making sure they had Cooze exactly where they wanted him and I blame the Trust for not listening to strong voices stating quite clearly their set up was compromised, weak and at arms length. That, my friend is facking inexcusable.
Before anyone starts accusing me of being on some pathetic payroll, I’ll make my position clear on Jenkins, Morgan and Dineen, especially, as it’s these 3 I believe made the majority of the decisions down there. Their names are mud and what they once had and were loved for, the respect they had gained from all those years looking after our City’s Football Club, has gone up in flames. They will never feel safe in Swansea, they will always be looking over their shoulder and be regarded in exactly the same light as the City’s most hated villain, Tony Petty.
It’s as simple as that — Jenkins, Morgan, Dineen, Petty…. This is your legacy! What you are seeing now in front of your very eyes must be your worst nightmare and believe me, all of you, this will keep you up at nights and no luck will come your way.
You are scum and if this game wasn’t so important for us, the fans, not you kunts, you don’t even come into it, we’d be all over you. You won’t get an easy ride, in fact you will get almight hell and deserve it.
On the Trust, I am still sickened they let it get to this but now is not the time to listen to pacifying mails like SwanseaJill or you, Mike, sorry. Now is the time to put your foot down. |
Agree 100%. This post is spot on. | | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:37 - Dec 6 with 1028 views | Pegojack |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:19 - Dec 6 by Smellyplumz |
Firstly well done for attending the meeting, I couldn't make it due to illness, secondly I think your being a little unfair for attacking fans in your post because what you have to remember is that the points you have made have not really been communicated very well to the fans by the trust. The way I've seen this situation for a while is that we have been royally bummed and there's very little we can do about it so why the hell don't the trust just come out and admit this so that all fans are fully aware of the futility of it.? |
I'm happy with the Trust's communication, but I accept that improvements can always be made, they haven't been perfect.
I don't accept your second point, yes we have been royally bummed but there are things we can do about it and they are being explored. Do you want the Trust to spell out our strategy and tactics in detail and give the enemy unnecessary information, or should we be keeping them on the back foot?
Also bear in mind that the Trust can't just instigate legal action, that will require the approval of the members via a ballot. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:37 - Dec 6 with 1026 views | Smellyplumz |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:34 - Dec 6 by Landore_Jack |
Probably not, but it will guarantee protection to the the Trust. At present, there is a strong possibility that the Trust can be diluted. The sellouts have made their millions. Handing over 4 percent would leave a legacy that the Trust will protected from other shareholders. [Post edited 6 Dec 2016 11:36]
|
Yeah I get that but you seriously can't think for one minute they would actually do that, i mean at least one of them is still getting paid by the club owners so why would they hand the trust 25% which would then get in the way of the owners? Our club is gone, we are fkd and there's nothing anyone can do but accept it. | |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:49 - Dec 6 with 987 views | Private_Partz |
| Swans Trust Meeting on 11:11 - Dec 6 by max936 |
Why wasn't it allowed, because they had to be shared out?
Yet the sellout shysters were allowed to go down the route that they have, that can't be right ffs mun. |
Indeed, the fact that they went down that route and abiding by the original SHA in relation to Mel's shares means a prcedent has has been set.
Surely the original SHA cannot then be torn up just because the end product does not suit the sellers and deprives them of top dollar. OR even scuppers the whole deal as I am not at all sure the Yanks would have come in without a controlling interest. Bloody unlikely in fact...... |  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
