Forum | Any Trust members by swancity |

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Any Trust members 10:39 - Jul 28 with 15231 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

-1

Any Trust members on 14:37 - Aug 16 with 861 views

Dr_Parnassus

Any Trust members on 14:32 - Aug 16 by Chief

5 Years ago but have since:
- Attempted extensive dialogue&working relationship with the new owners(also new personnel Birch etc)
- Consulted members.
- 2 democratic ballot.
- Considered settlement.
- Attempted mediation.
- Covid delays.
- Gathering/collating evidence.

Various things I've no doubt missed and the extensive administrative work that go along with everything above. These are unpaid non professionals, with lives and jobs.

Do you dispute any of the above!? Am I being unreasonable?

Yes well with a decent relationship with the owners, why would there be a need for conflict and litigation?

Well you didn't mention the second vote.

None of that has a reasonable timescale of 5 years on it. 12 months may be acceptable, we are taking half a decade here.

	Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Poll:	Would you swap Ayew for Piroe?

Any Trust members on 14:50 - Aug 16 with 859 views

Chief

Any Trust members on 14:25 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus

It’s definitely a bad look. It will also without doubt be a large part of the consideration. They were prejudiced 5 years ago.

The Trust felt it beneficial to work with the Americans in the new ownership arrangement as they wanted to keep a presence in boardroom and even said they had improved relations. This was clearly a time where they were tolerating the arrangement and not seeking out legal action or alternatives.

I haven’t omitted the second vote, the second vote wasn’t the point I was making. The point I was making is that in the last 5 years the Trust has a clear route to legal action and actively swayed its members not to. What they did after that is irrelevant to the point I am making.

Poll:

Rate the ref's performance today

Any Trust members on 14:52 - Aug 16 with 856 views

Dr_Parnassus

Any Trust members on 14:50 - Aug 16 by Chief

You seem to have posted this again?

My response is above.

	Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Poll:	Would you swap Ayew for Piroe?

Any Trust members on 14:53 - Aug 16 with 854 views

ReslovenSwan1

Any Trust members on 14:21 - Aug 16 by onehunglow
Chief. You ay all costs but many are vehemently in favour of such action and I would suggest some would opine we "need" to do it.

In any dispute legal action is very tempting "to settle old scores" for example. People do not regularly do it because of the potential horendous costs and if things escalate the harrowing prospect of standing in court on oath. I would expect any people taking legal action would have a nominated person(s) to be held responsible to carry on the "rightuous" fight. With the frequent turnover of leadership of similar organisations they cannot have anyone responsible for the course taken now saying. "I am no longer involved to exceute the wishes of the membership" or declaring themselves "unfit to stand" for whatever resaon. Its human nature to take legal action often out of revenge. To be able to vote for it using assets of a "arms length" vehicle formed as a 'not for profit organisation' with no personal libility would be irressitible for those with a tendency for conflict but lacking the values of personal responsibility.

[Post edited 16 Aug 2020 14:54]

Wise sage since Toshack era

-1

Any Trust members on 14:57 - Aug 16 with 844 views

onehunglow

Ive seen that "settling old scores" before and if that is the reason for action then we face ignomy ,for ure.Taking legal action for personal reasons,for spite,for jealousy ,envy or simple hate is nuts,but we see ample evidence of that ,don't we.

If we could be a united fan base ,we would be far better off;in fact probably still in the premier league as it seems petty jealousy/greed/mistrust sent us down a much a manager incompetence. Its us fans who have suffered a players move on,apart from Routledge obviously

Poll:

Christmas. Enjoyable or not

Any Trust members on 14:58 - Aug 16 with 842 views

Chief

Any Trust members on 14:37 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus
None of that has a reasonable timescale of 5 years on it. 12 months may be acceptable, we are taking half a decade here.

That's very a unrealistic timescale.

Poll:

Rate the ref's performance today

Any Trust members on 15:02 - Aug 16 with 832 views

Dr_Parnassus

Any Trust members on 14:58 - Aug 16 by Chief
That's very a unrealistic timescale.

Not at all, it’s entirely acceptable. The prejudice was there from day 1. Don’t for one second buy the “wheels of legal profession turn slowly” nonsense trotted out. There is slow.. and then there is slow.

12 months is a damn site more realistic than 5 years that’s for sure, especially when much of that was down to their own doing.

	Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Poll:	Would you swap Ayew for Piroe?

Any Trust members on 16:48 - Aug 16 with 780 views

Chief

Any Trust members on 15:02 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus
Not at all, it’s entirely acceptable. The prejudice was there from day 1. Don’t for one second buy the “wheels of legal profession turn slowly” nonsense trotted out. There is slow.. and then there is slow. 12 months is a damn site more realistic than 5 years that’s for sure, especially when much of that was down to their own doing.

The prejudice may have been there from day 1 in reality and with the benefit of hindsight.

But all the things I listed above individually can take months at a time.

Anyway, I hope the courts sees why this time lapse has occurred and see it as feasible as I do.

Poll:

Rate the ref's performance today

Any Trust members on 18:47 - Aug 16 with 742 views

chad

Any Trust members on 11:27 - Aug 15 by Dr_Parnassus

What do you mean that’s how the process works? No unfair prejudice case takes 5 years to prepare and no adjudicator in the land will believe it.

The Americans will have exact dates and will have minuted discussions to show that the Trust tolerated the prejudice and delayed action significantly until the company (and thus shares) lost value.

Spin it any way, it is not a good look. In fact is awful.

I think the argument would be, that they preferred to come to an accommodation, as a remedy to the Unfair Prejudice, by agreeing a deal which they put to the members with a recommendation to accept the deal.

The fact that they were naive and agreed a deal that had serious disadvantages for us (the Trust), and were naive in ignoring members openly trying to bring this to their attention on here, and at meetings; and repeatedly telling them the new majority owners were not to be trusted. Hardly a revelation, as they had proved themselves untrustworthy in their actions in relation to the sale and time and again since.

However the deal was gone into in good faith. It was the new majority owners that unilaterally pulled out on the deal they had agreed and which had been put to members.

Now Phil, in the negotiations to formally tie up the deal, it seems began to finally realise his mistakes, that the majority owners indeed were not to be trusted, as they tried to change things agreed to in the deal.

The majority of the rest of the Trust Board were still willing to go ahead and surrender to the demands of the majority owners to get it done. This willingness to capitulate to the demands to change things previously agreed ,would no doubt be seen as accommodation to achieve a resolution. So I think would be seen favourably.

(To me it seemed like weakness, especially given the deal was so poor for us in the first place. Undoubtedly a weakness that the new majority owners would fully comprehend too.)

The fact that Phil at this point resigned, I would think would also seem to the judge as an accommodation to allow the deal to go ahead, rather than cause friction within the Trust Board. The fact this left him free to pursue other avenues was his own affair.

After seeing the Trust Board’s weakness the majority owners decided to unilaterally withdraw from the deal. They made a clear statement as to the reason for that, weak as it was. But as I recall was nothing to do with the Trust but all about wanting to concentrate on the Club.

Now I cannot think this will be seen in a good light for the majority owners and their personal responsibility in relation to the actions that caused this case.

But it did also necessitate going back to the members because the initial recommended and chosen option was no longer available. Of course it seems the whole rigmarole of consultation and data gathering then needed to go ahead? The failure of the majority owners to respond within timescales was reported to us so again not good for them.

Of course the time is a concern, but at no time did they accept the Unfair Prejudice.

As far as the no tax payable it is more than hearsay, given it was initially thought tax would be payable, but was particularly looked into and we were informed it would was not payable. Perhaps WK could confirm that is the case with the Trust. I don’t have the 2nd consultation papers to hand but possibly mentioned on there.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread