| Any Trust members 10:39 - Jul 28 with 15181 views | swancity |
care to provide an update regarding the (potential) case against Jenkins etc ? |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| Any Trust members on 22:46 - Aug 10 with 2109 views | chad |
| Any Trust members on 18:47 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As I understand it a possible result is a forced purchase of shares probably by he club. Proceeds from selling shares is taxable.I seen no reson why they would not be. Perhaps there are other compensation awards that are not taxable but probably for substantially less. It was reported the funders wanted a flat fee not recoverable plus their legal fees, that are not court fees that can be given to the loser. I have seen nowhere where the expected recovered funds are given. It is bound to be well short of £21m commonly quoted. |
‘Probably by the club’
So why are you saying that, in fact don’t answer that it is fairly obvious.
From a legal website
‘the most common remedy awarded to a successful Petitioner is to order that their shares be purchased by those who caused the unfair prejudice.’
It was initially suggested that tax would be payable on the proceeds of the above outcome. As I have explained, the Trust investigated this, as requested, and confirmed that tax would not be payable.
So in the most likely outcome of our strong case being successful, and our actions showing the type of positive attitude towards achieving a solution that indicates costs being awarded, then it is very possible, in fact it would seem the most likely outcome, that we could come out of this with £21 million. In the case the offenders are foolish enough not to settle out of court. However any settlement would need to be substantially close to the expected award.
Presumably possible additional compensation from sellouts for their actions. So £21 million could be an underestimate.
So far from being bound to be well short of £21 million it could be well over. Plus the satisfaction of the behaviour of the parties involved in the deceit being a matter of public court record. |  | | |
| Any Trust members on 00:16 - Aug 11 with 2059 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Any Trust members on 22:46 - Aug 10 by chad |
‘Probably by the club’
So why are you saying that, in fact don’t answer that it is fairly obvious.
From a legal website
‘the most common remedy awarded to a successful Petitioner is to order that their shares be purchased by those who caused the unfair prejudice.’
It was initially suggested that tax would be payable on the proceeds of the above outcome. As I have explained, the Trust investigated this, as requested, and confirmed that tax would not be payable.
So in the most likely outcome of our strong case being successful, and our actions showing the type of positive attitude towards achieving a solution that indicates costs being awarded, then it is very possible, in fact it would seem the most likely outcome, that we could come out of this with £21 million. In the case the offenders are foolish enough not to settle out of court. However any settlement would need to be substantially close to the expected award.
Presumably possible additional compensation from sellouts for their actions. So £21 million could be an underestimate.
So far from being bound to be well short of £21 million it could be well over. Plus the satisfaction of the behaviour of the parties involved in the deceit being a matter of public court record. |
Your explanation is very unconvincing. It has a "tell me what i want to hear" feel to it. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Any Trust members on 09:24 - Aug 11 with 1945 views | swancity |
| Any Trust members on 00:16 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Your explanation is very unconvincing. It has a "tell me what i want to hear" feel to it. |
You seem to be one of :
1 Naive
2 On a wind up
3 Thick
4 Related to one of the previous owners
5 Gullible
👠| |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Any Trust members on 09:48 - Aug 11 with 1930 views | chad |
| Any Trust members on 00:16 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Your explanation is very unconvincing. It has a "tell me what i want to hear" feel to it. |
Yet I am the one referring to legal guidance, and you are the one who seems to be making it up as you go along.
It may be tempting to consider you have some personal interest in protecting the sellouts and new majority owners from having the harsh light of legal action thrown upon their behaviour, let alone the potential many million £ cost to them.
I can understand their concerns. | | | |
| Any Trust members (n/t) on 13:21 - Aug 11 with 1866 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Any Trust members on 20:52 - Jul 28 by exiledclaseboy |
At least one from the past already has, or will from next week. Whoever the chair is has limited influence in setting direction to be honest. All decisions are taken by the board as a whole and that’s never straightforward. |
[Post edited 11 Aug 2020 13:31]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Any Trust members on 13:32 - Aug 11 with 1861 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Any Trust members on 09:24 - Aug 11 by swancity |
You seem to be one of :
1 Naive
2 On a wind up
3 Thick
4 Related to one of the previous owners
5 Gullible
👠|
Its standard practice for the defenders of the crazy legal action to go on the offensive with smears and accusations of vested interest. The funders of the case will decide its merit and they have already taken around 2 years deciding.
The Silverstein money is an investment in the form of a loan. The lady on here who is an accountant Lisa called it a 'convertable debt' which is accountancy jargon. It is enough to give him a seat on the Board, in any case. She reckoned it was all agreed by all parties.
Your rosy summary of the potential financial gains of legal action excluded the costs of the funders which were some say could around £6m-£7m plus any tax liabilites which is not credible. If Lisa stated that I would be more inclined to believe it. [Post edited 11 Aug 2020 13:33]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Any Trust members on 15:00 - Aug 11 with 1812 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Any Trust members on 13:32 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Its standard practice for the defenders of the crazy legal action to go on the offensive with smears and accusations of vested interest. The funders of the case will decide its merit and they have already taken around 2 years deciding.
The Silverstein money is an investment in the form of a loan. The lady on here who is an accountant Lisa called it a 'convertable debt' which is accountancy jargon. It is enough to give him a seat on the Board, in any case. She reckoned it was all agreed by all parties.
Your rosy summary of the potential financial gains of legal action excluded the costs of the funders which were some say could around £6m-£7m plus any tax liabilites which is not credible. If Lisa stated that I would be more inclined to believe it. [Post edited 11 Aug 2020 13:33]
|
If you could stop misrepresenting me that would be great.
I said it had been reported as convertible debt. Convertible debt is debt. Usually with interest which may or may not be rolled up and converted as well depending on the agreement.
It’s a loan. Which (again, according to reports) the person who holds that debt can choose to convert. Or choose not to. The reality is that a conversion rate will have been set (it always is) and if that represents good value it will be converted and if it doesn’t, it won’t be.
Again, 8 didn’t say it had been agreed by all parties. The Trust made it clear it wasn’t agreed by them, for example. I said that a board seat was in the gift of the majority shareholder. If they agree to a board seat, they agree. There is a default for shareholders holding over 5% of the company to get a seat, but that certainly doesn’t mean every board member has to meet that criteria.
It seems you’re full of bull. | | | |
| Any Trust members on 15:51 - Aug 11 with 1783 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Any Trust members on 15:00 - Aug 11 by londonlisa2001 |
If you could stop misrepresenting me that would be great.
I said it had been reported as convertible debt. Convertible debt is debt. Usually with interest which may or may not be rolled up and converted as well depending on the agreement.
It’s a loan. Which (again, according to reports) the person who holds that debt can choose to convert. Or choose not to. The reality is that a conversion rate will have been set (it always is) and if that represents good value it will be converted and if it doesn’t, it won’t be.
Again, 8 didn’t say it had been agreed by all parties. The Trust made it clear it wasn’t agreed by them, for example. I said that a board seat was in the gift of the majority shareholder. If they agree to a board seat, they agree. There is a default for shareholders holding over 5% of the company to get a seat, but that certainly doesn’t mean every board member has to meet that criteria.
It seems you’re full of bull. |
Thanks for the clarification. No comment on the little slur at the end. I am not an accountant. I try to be polite wherever possible. I am content that the possible 'convertable debt' is good news and there is no reason why the debt should not be converted. The only issue was the valuation and that is likely to have been settled from what you say. Dilution of minority shareholders (if that is likely to happen as a result) is not an issue for me. It is an issue for the Trust members and other owners who may not want to contribute. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Any Trust members on 18:09 - Aug 11 with 1753 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Any Trust members on 15:51 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Thanks for the clarification. No comment on the little slur at the end. I am not an accountant. I try to be polite wherever possible. I am content that the possible 'convertable debt' is good news and there is no reason why the debt should not be converted. The only issue was the valuation and that is likely to have been settled from what you say. Dilution of minority shareholders (if that is likely to happen as a result) is not an issue for me. It is an issue for the Trust members and other owners who may not want to contribute. |
“ Its standard practice for the defenders of the crazy legal action”
See, that, in my opinion, is as far as it can be from polite.
And, since you have no expertise, I fail to see why you being content, or unable to see a reason why debt should not be converted, isn’t somewhat of an irrelevance.
I’ll give you a little example to be getting on with:
Let’s say, for arguments sake, the conversion rights value the club at £100m pre money. I’m sure they won’t, but it’s an example.
Let’s also say the club are relegated next season and, as a League 1 club, are valued at £10m. Why would someone ‘pay’ (i.e, convert their debt) at a £100m valuation instead of taking their money back?
Could you provide an answer to that? And once you have, please explain whether this still makes you see no reason why someone would not convert. | | | |
| Any Trust members on 21:30 - Aug 11 with 1698 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Any Trust members on 18:09 - Aug 11 by londonlisa2001 |
“ Its standard practice for the defenders of the crazy legal action”
See, that, in my opinion, is as far as it can be from polite.
And, since you have no expertise, I fail to see why you being content, or unable to see a reason why debt should not be converted, isn’t somewhat of an irrelevance.
I’ll give you a little example to be getting on with:
Let’s say, for arguments sake, the conversion rights value the club at £100m pre money. I’m sure they won’t, but it’s an example.
Let’s also say the club are relegated next season and, as a League 1 club, are valued at £10m. Why would someone ‘pay’ (i.e, convert their debt) at a £100m valuation instead of taking their money back?
Could you provide an answer to that? And once you have, please explain whether this still makes you see no reason why someone would not convert. |
Stating my opinion that legal action is crazy is not impolite in my opinion. Its just an opinion. What the point of a Supporters Trust with £12-15m in the bank with zero holding and seriously unwelcome at the Liberty? If the duty of the Trust is to 'bring the club closer to the community' then it will have conclusively failed.
Interesting points about the conversion rights. I suspect the conditions are more to do with Covid than relegation perhaps? If it is a conditional loan to be converted within a time period it seems strange that he has been given a place on the Board and a hands on role when the back door for a fast exit is provided. Surely the conversion price including relegation can be included in the deal to cover that? The BBC did not pick up on this at least.
I assumed the loan was just a period to dot the i s and cross the t s and get agreement with the minor shreholders. I thought the sticking point would be the valuation but I defer to you on this. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Any Trust members on 21:47 - Aug 11 with 1687 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Any Trust members on 21:30 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Stating my opinion that legal action is crazy is not impolite in my opinion. Its just an opinion. What the point of a Supporters Trust with £12-15m in the bank with zero holding and seriously unwelcome at the Liberty? If the duty of the Trust is to 'bring the club closer to the community' then it will have conclusively failed.
Interesting points about the conversion rights. I suspect the conditions are more to do with Covid than relegation perhaps? If it is a conditional loan to be converted within a time period it seems strange that he has been given a place on the Board and a hands on role when the back door for a fast exit is provided. Surely the conversion price including relegation can be included in the deal to cover that? The BBC did not pick up on this at least.
I assumed the loan was just a period to dot the i s and cross the t s and get agreement with the minor shreholders. I thought the sticking point would be the valuation but I defer to you on this. |
The primary duty of the Trust is:
“ To maintain a professional football club in Swansea;”.
If the Trust has a substantial amount of money, it can play an active role in a situation of relegation with the owners wanting out, or administration. Either alone, or preferably, with a partner or partners who share its aims.
The rest of your post is a lot of assumptions and suspicions, none of which have much relationship to reality as far as has been publicised. | | | |
| Any Trust members on 12:25 - Aug 12 with 1602 views | BillyChong |
| Any Trust members on 21:30 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Stating my opinion that legal action is crazy is not impolite in my opinion. Its just an opinion. What the point of a Supporters Trust with £12-15m in the bank with zero holding and seriously unwelcome at the Liberty? If the duty of the Trust is to 'bring the club closer to the community' then it will have conclusively failed.
Interesting points about the conversion rights. I suspect the conditions are more to do with Covid than relegation perhaps? If it is a conditional loan to be converted within a time period it seems strange that he has been given a place on the Board and a hands on role when the back door for a fast exit is provided. Surely the conversion price including relegation can be included in the deal to cover that? The BBC did not pick up on this at least.
I assumed the loan was just a period to dot the i s and cross the t s and get agreement with the minor shreholders. I thought the sticking point would be the valuation but I defer to you on this. |
How would the trust be anymore ‘seriously unwelcome at the Liberty’ than the current owners or the sellouts? | | | |
| Any Trust members on 14:12 - Aug 12 with 1567 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Any Trust members on 12:25 - Aug 12 by BillyChong |
How would the trust be anymore ‘seriously unwelcome at the Liberty’ than the current owners or the sellouts? |
The 'sellouts' have long gone and will not be coming back. The south African guy was a venture capatalist after all. The local owners still own a holding and will not be 'sellouts' but 'buy backers'. The 'sellouts' will be the Supporters Trust who then become a fancy dan irrelevance with plenty of cash earning 0.5% per annum and nothing to spend it on. The Trust supporters do not seem to realise this is divorce and there will, in my opinion, be no way back. Trying to find a buyer is hard enough. Trying to find a buyer willing to deal with the litiguous Trust will be an impossiblity in my opinion. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Any Trust members on 15:14 - Aug 12 with 1545 views | chad |
| Any Trust members on 14:12 - Aug 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The 'sellouts' have long gone and will not be coming back. The south African guy was a venture capatalist after all. The local owners still own a holding and will not be 'sellouts' but 'buy backers'. The 'sellouts' will be the Supporters Trust who then become a fancy dan irrelevance with plenty of cash earning 0.5% per annum and nothing to spend it on. The Trust supporters do not seem to realise this is divorce and there will, in my opinion, be no way back. Trying to find a buyer is hard enough. Trying to find a buyer willing to deal with the litiguous Trust will be an impossiblity in my opinion. |
Excellent so you agree the sooner this is put to bed the better. It was Jason and Steve who had the assuredness to even back out on that outrageously generous deal the Trust gifted them. Otherwise it would be all sewn up by now, and the new majority owners would have the power to force the Trust to sell our shares at any time at a price and to a buyer of their choosing.
It is not divorce, Jason and Steve will tell you it is just business, you behave in a certain way and there are legal consequences.
I am sure with the money fairly in the bank, to protect the club in these very uncertain times we can all throw our full support behind the new majority owners. Of course they want to do the best for the Club to make it profitable for them. But if that is not possible then they from the outset would have an exit strategy in place. That is when the money could be used to protect the club. Unlike the sellouts we can not benefit personally from it,
Litigious Trust, you must be having a laugh. Of course once the case is settled there is unlikely to be a Trust to legally deal with, as the most likely outcome is the individual offenders will be forced to buy out our shares and we will have no legal interest in the club. Just like the deal would have allowed the new majority owners to force us to sell our shares to any new owners. | | | |
| Any Trust members on 16:05 - Aug 12 with 1522 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Any Trust members on 15:14 - Aug 12 by chad |
Excellent so you agree the sooner this is put to bed the better. It was Jason and Steve who had the assuredness to even back out on that outrageously generous deal the Trust gifted them. Otherwise it would be all sewn up by now, and the new majority owners would have the power to force the Trust to sell our shares at any time at a price and to a buyer of their choosing.
It is not divorce, Jason and Steve will tell you it is just business, you behave in a certain way and there are legal consequences.
I am sure with the money fairly in the bank, to protect the club in these very uncertain times we can all throw our full support behind the new majority owners. Of course they want to do the best for the Club to make it profitable for them. But if that is not possible then they from the outset would have an exit strategy in place. That is when the money could be used to protect the club. Unlike the sellouts we can not benefit personally from it,
Litigious Trust, you must be having a laugh. Of course once the case is settled there is unlikely to be a Trust to legally deal with, as the most likely outcome is the individual offenders will be forced to buy out our shares and we will have no legal interest in the club. Just like the deal would have allowed the new majority owners to force us to sell our shares to any new owners. |
The main beneficiaries of legal action, if it ever happens, are third party outsiders invited into the process by the Trust. There is absolutely no doubt the Trust should have put itself up for sale after the first approach in 2015. It was a major strategic blunder. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Any Trust members on 17:01 - Aug 12 with 1486 views | BillyChong |
| Any Trust members on 14:12 - Aug 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The 'sellouts' have long gone and will not be coming back. The south African guy was a venture capatalist after all. The local owners still own a holding and will not be 'sellouts' but 'buy backers'. The 'sellouts' will be the Supporters Trust who then become a fancy dan irrelevance with plenty of cash earning 0.5% per annum and nothing to spend it on. The Trust supporters do not seem to realise this is divorce and there will, in my opinion, be no way back. Trying to find a buyer is hard enough. Trying to find a buyer willing to deal with the litiguous Trust will be an impossiblity in my opinion. |
So Van Zweden and Dineen aren’t sellouts? And no longer attend games? | | | |
| Any Trust members on 17:35 - Aug 12 with 1471 views | chad |
| Any Trust members on 16:05 - Aug 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The main beneficiaries of legal action, if it ever happens, are third party outsiders invited into the process by the Trust. There is absolutely no doubt the Trust should have put itself up for sale after the first approach in 2015. It was a major strategic blunder. |
Well if you are alluding to some inside information come on spit it out. Or are you just making incorrect nonsense up again.
The primary beneficiary should be the Trust.
There would be no need for legal action if the other parties had not lied and cheated and colluded to exclude the Trust.
The Trust has been seriously materially damaged in terms of value of its shares and power of its shares.
The sellouts only trousered all that money for the sale by their dishonest and underhand tactics.
Let us at least be honest. They were entitled to sell their shares but they would likely have been unsellable or at best for a small fraction of what they received, without colluding to ensure the new owners were given effectively total control to do as they please with our club, and ensure the Trust’s 21% plus shares were rendered effectively worthless.
The Trust had no need to sell the shares to ensure the sellouts could enjoy windfall profits at the expense of our club. The sellouts were entitled to only what their shares were worth if they sold them with honesty and in line with their legal obligations (although a little integrity would not have gone amiss either).
I would suggest the lying and cheating of the other parties was the major strategic blunder and the reason experienced Counsel has adjudged our case to be strong.
That of course and leaving a paper trail / openly admitting their behaviour on tape.
Caveat Emptor | | | |
| Any Trust members on 06:40 - Aug 14 with 1337 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 17:35 - Aug 12 by chad |
Well if you are alluding to some inside information come on spit it out. Or are you just making incorrect nonsense up again.
The primary beneficiary should be the Trust.
There would be no need for legal action if the other parties had not lied and cheated and colluded to exclude the Trust.
The Trust has been seriously materially damaged in terms of value of its shares and power of its shares.
The sellouts only trousered all that money for the sale by their dishonest and underhand tactics.
Let us at least be honest. They were entitled to sell their shares but they would likely have been unsellable or at best for a small fraction of what they received, without colluding to ensure the new owners were given effectively total control to do as they please with our club, and ensure the Trust’s 21% plus shares were rendered effectively worthless.
The Trust had no need to sell the shares to ensure the sellouts could enjoy windfall profits at the expense of our club. The sellouts were entitled to only what their shares were worth if they sold them with honesty and in line with their legal obligations (although a little integrity would not have gone amiss either).
I would suggest the lying and cheating of the other parties was the major strategic blunder and the reason experienced Counsel has adjudged our case to be strong.
That of course and leaving a paper trail / openly admitting their behaviour on tape.
Caveat Emptor |
I say it quite a lot, but the Trust really did lack major foresight and I was banned for saying so at the time.
The Trust just had to be open to selling their shares to avoid this scenario, and it’s not a scenario that was really that unforeseen. It had been discussed on here at length regarding an ultimate goal of majority ownership. The only way that can ever realistically happen is selling at the top of the share value and reinvesting further down the line at a lower rate.
This has been my main criticism of the Trust and the people running it. The had rigid goals that did not change when the absolutely should have been flipped on their head the moment they got a sniff that others were selling.
I’m all for legal action but it’s very much closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Even if everything goes the Trusts way, what’s it going to be self with? £5m? £6m? The people running the Trust that did all in their power to sway the original decision away from legal action have hamstrung the organisation and by proxy the club and its supporters. Going against their only remit.
The amazing thing is the (possibly) loudest voice behind ‘no legal action’, is now the Chair of the Trust taking over from the person who was probably second on that list.
Anyone who has any patience left with them are stronger people than me that’s for sure. |  |
| |
| Any Trust members on 09:08 - Aug 14 with 1306 views | waynekerr55 |
| Any Trust members on 06:40 - Aug 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
I say it quite a lot, but the Trust really did lack major foresight and I was banned for saying so at the time.
The Trust just had to be open to selling their shares to avoid this scenario, and it’s not a scenario that was really that unforeseen. It had been discussed on here at length regarding an ultimate goal of majority ownership. The only way that can ever realistically happen is selling at the top of the share value and reinvesting further down the line at a lower rate.
This has been my main criticism of the Trust and the people running it. The had rigid goals that did not change when the absolutely should have been flipped on their head the moment they got a sniff that others were selling.
I’m all for legal action but it’s very much closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Even if everything goes the Trusts way, what’s it going to be self with? £5m? £6m? The people running the Trust that did all in their power to sway the original decision away from legal action have hamstrung the organisation and by proxy the club and its supporters. Going against their only remit.
The amazing thing is the (possibly) loudest voice behind ‘no legal action’, is now the Chair of the Trust taking over from the person who was probably second on that list.
Anyone who has any patience left with them are stronger people than me that’s for sure. |
You know it's a lot more than 5m quid they've been fiddled out of.
Quel surprise a new tactic is now "the Trust knew" to now "the sellouts have gone". Squeaky bum time, yeah? |  |
| |
| Any Trust members on 15:38 - Aug 14 with 1252 views | Dewi1jack |
| Any Trust members on 12:25 - Aug 12 by BillyChong |
How would the trust be anymore ‘seriously unwelcome at the Liberty’ than the current owners or the sellouts? |
You're asking a serious question to someone who uses the BBC as a point of reference.
Really?
I know you're not that naive 
A few talking sense and debating properly for both sides of the argument
Then Mart6 pops up down arrowing as normal
Badlands coming out with his usual bollox
Then this resloven (Resolven perhaps?) using the BBC as a reference point.
Takes real determination to try and deal with that type of stupid
bounce] |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Any Trust members on 16:31 - Aug 14 with 1224 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 09:08 - Aug 14 by waynekerr55 |
You know it's a lot more than 5m quid they've been fiddled out of.
Quel surprise a new tactic is now "the Trust knew" to now "the sellouts have gone". Squeaky bum time, yeah? |
I don’t know what any of that means I’m afraid.
It doesn’t matter how much they have been prejudiced by. It’s not exempt from taxes or legal fees should the case be successful which is looking less likely as the years go by. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 17:30 - Aug 14 with 1205 views | waynekerr55 |
| Any Trust members on 16:31 - Aug 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
I don’t know what any of that means I’m afraid.
It doesn’t matter how much they have been prejudiced by. It’s not exempt from taxes or legal fees should the case be successful which is looking less likely as the years go by. |
How does it look less likely? Utter rubbish I'm afraid - you're telling me legal fees and tax will knock circa 10m off the value of the shares?
The owners reneged on the agreed deal and won't engage in mediation
The owners are on camera stating that Jenkins and Dineen told them to keep the Trust out of the deal.
How does this weaken the case? [Post edited 14 Aug 2020 17:31]
| |
| |
| Any Trust members on 17:35 - Aug 14 with 1203 views | chad |
| Any Trust members on 16:31 - Aug 14 by Dr_Parnassus |
I don’t know what any of that means I’m afraid.
It doesn’t matter how much they have been prejudiced by. It’s not exempt from taxes or legal fees should the case be successful which is looking less likely as the years go by. |
As I said, previously, it was initially thought tax would be payable, perhaps also suited the initial desire not to go legal.
However the Trust later definitely said they had looked into this and said tax would not be payable. I think Stu stated it at a meeting. I particularly remember because I was really pleased as it obviously made quite a difference. Presumably something to do with the Trusts status.
I share your concerns re the time going on, but the new owners decided to unilaterally pull out of the deal, so there was no choice but to go back. But it does seem a very long time, especially as it had been said time was of the essence. | | | |
| Any Trust members on 20:06 - Aug 14 with 1157 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Any Trust members on 17:35 - Aug 14 by chad |
As I said, previously, it was initially thought tax would be payable, perhaps also suited the initial desire not to go legal.
However the Trust later definitely said they had looked into this and said tax would not be payable. I think Stu stated it at a meeting. I particularly remember because I was really pleased as it obviously made quite a difference. Presumably something to do with the Trusts status.
I share your concerns re the time going on, but the new owners decided to unilaterally pull out of the deal, so there was no choice but to go back. But it does seem a very long time, especially as it had been said time was of the essence. |
If the Trust said tax would not be payable then this would be minuted somewhere presumably before the second vote. Perhaps you could dig that up? No point mentioning it on mere heresay. I assumed it would be payable and that is normal for most capital gains. Capital gains would be massive.
The US people stated they withdrew from the 2017 talks after considerable internal acrimony within the Trust, and from my recollection two Chairmen resigned during the talks as a deal approached. They also stated the terms were better than those offered to other sellers. I think in most organisations two resignation within days could be described as unusual to say the least. They were the buyers and that is their reason for withdrawal. Who can prove it was not the case? Reported in the BBC and Walesonline. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
