| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 141096 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:26 - Jun 30 with 2078 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:20 - Jun 30 by Swanzay |
Hi Phil
I respect all the Trusts hard work in the last few months, but why do you keep calling it the "nuclear option"
AGAIN the trust quote...
We have a rare model where fans can directly be involved in the club management (albeit remotely throu the Trust reps). Isn't the aim to have as big an influence as possible, which can only be achieved through as large a shareholding as possible? These owners will soon go, but the Trust preserves the link between the fans and the club, so our kids and their kids still have a stake one day. Why would we want to dilute that link?
To me this has nothing to do with the current owners and the future of the Swans for future generations is critical.
But what truly annoys me is the sell out kunts, 2 of which, enjoyed each others company today (Dineen and Katzan) over lunch. Get away with it!
The Trust are basically being bribed to keep stumm, whilst being screwed yet again, by those who originally did the dirty deed! |
I think generically it has been taken as such - it wasnt a phrase I coined personally but one that has been used. I think it is called such because as far as any working relationship with the club goes then pressing the litigate button will effectively end it is the general viewpoint taken.
I dont disagree with what you say necessarily on the sellers but I do reiterate that the case for unfair prejudice the likely outcome is the buyers buying our shareholding if we win - there isn't a recourse there for those sellers. Rightly or wrongly that is exactly what we have been told as a result of any legal case.
To your point about diluting the influence - we will have no less influence at say 16% shareholding then we do at 21% not in terms of the day to day involvement at the club. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:28 - Jun 30 with 2068 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:11 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
By Swexit I assume you mean litigation?
The Trust board will back any mandate provided to it by its membership. No matter how revolutionary, we cannot do any different
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Swexit was Ux's choice of words not mine Phil. But what i mean is, that if the offer is declined by the trust membership, then the trust board themselves have to appreciate that the lines of communication with the owners/other shareholders have broken down irreconcilably, and you'd have to act accordingly. It's not as if you can walk the corridors of the Liberty stadium stating to 'Jase and Steve  ' that the trust board disagrees with it's members can you? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:29 - Jun 30 with 2058 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:22 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
The reason I ask people just to think of what they want the outcome to be is purely because that is the thing that should drive the decision
If you want a complete sale then the only way to that is to attempt litigation, we won't get that without it
If you want Jenkins out then litigation isn't a route towards that happening.
And no I wasnt expecting him to say a 100% win that would be crazy but he is very clearly saying that we should be negotiating hard first and foremost and that has been the route. The fact that he backed what we were saying last night and the way we went about it speaks volumes to me.
But as said that isn't my decision to make so we see what the vote says.
I'm sorry to anyone that thinks I have done a bad job, almost wish I had just watched the football instead... :D |
Phil,
Has the QC been asked for/given his opinion on whether the Trust board recommending acceptance of the Yanks offer would have any prejudicial effect on the case going to court if the members voted against the offer on the table? i.e. Does it weaken the legal route.
Thanks. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:32 - Jun 30 with 2047 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:18 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Phil or Ux, in October of last year, the Trust issued a statement containing a list of demands that it felt should be met failing which legal action should be taken. It talked about long term protection being vital.
How do you think this proposed deal does that? What long term protection does it give the Trust? |
That long term protection was referring at that point in time very much to protection against dilution. We won't be offered that and at no point do we have a legal case to make that happen
Here we have tried by taking the drag and tag to ensure that we have the same value as the Americans on any future sale - its nowhere near the protection that we wanted but it is a protection
Add to that a guaranteed £5m+ with a potential to effectively double that and we have a rainy day fund that can assist with protection in the future if it was decided to invest that back into the club in the event of share purchase. Which somehow in this thread has now been taken as the reason we are recommending the deal.
Personally I wouldn't vote for that I would retain the money and use it when it is more effective.
Which reminds me, NeathJack has been asking about what we could do with the money. In terms of the capital it really should only be used for future club investment or a rainy day fund - that was the advice we were given last time based on our constitution and rules.
What we haven't looked into is what we could do with the interest/earnings off that income and where we could invest that. Until we know it is coming then I dont see the point in spending time pursuing that angle when we need to clarify the viewpoint first
Back to your point we haven't got the protection that we were referring to - we were hopeful at that time that we could get it somehow legally but the advice is saying no on that. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:34 - Jun 30 with 2028 views | BLAZE |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:53 - Jun 30 by Starsky |
The Jenkins thing is a sideshow?
No it's not, it really isn't. |
If you want Jenkins out then litigation isn't a route towards that happening
Let me get this right then Phil - if we were to pursue legal action, and with a strong case were to find Jenkins guilty... you think he'll get to keep his position at the club. Really?
Common sense tells me a vote for legal action is absolutely a vote toward the removal of Jenkins. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:34 - Jun 30 with 2020 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:11 - Jun 30 by BLAZE |
It's being said that if we go down the route of legal action, then there's no guarantees that the people who want shot of Jenkins will get what they want
But surely if he's found guilty his position is untenable. If, in the eyes of the law, he's found to have knowingly and purposefully mislead the prospective buyers and lied about the situation regarding a major shareholder then he can no longer reside as chairman of said company. Surely? |
Blaze. You are talking far too much sense mate.
Trust have bent over and been taken in by their new best buddies. The bullshit of we need to thank them that they got rid of Bob and appointed Clement. Well its laughable how far Trust has fallen. Feeding their own egos.
Go to court.... end of. Fans have been ripped off. Trust fcuked up once. Don't do it again.
Lose court case and we still own 21 %. Trust saying they lose influence in boardroom... so what... got us nowhere last time round. New owners will come and what then ?
6 mill or 11 mill. For what ? I would not have faith in trust doing right thing with it. Keep the ownership. Win the court case. Get rid of Jenkins and Dineen. As long as they stay it will never be 'our club'.
New owners want to make profit, dont want a court case and treat trust like a needy child. Bit of attention and they think fans will go away quietly. Trust may - fans wont.
Dont want to affect team on pitch... when is right time to protest then. No cameras. No Sky tv. Enough is enough.
Not the Swansea way. Sorry. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 22:37]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:35 - Jun 30 with 2003 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:28 - Jun 30 by morningstar |
Swexit was Ux's choice of words not mine Phil. But what i mean is, that if the offer is declined by the trust membership, then the trust board themselves have to appreciate that the lines of communication with the owners/other shareholders have broken down irreconcilably, and you'd have to act accordingly. It's not as if you can walk the corridors of the Liberty stadium stating to 'Jase and Steve ' that the trust board disagrees with it's members can you? |
Ah I wondered where that came from - suspect he was firmly tongue in cheek with that statement 
All parties involved are aware and have been told since day 1 that my opinion, Stuart's opinion or the wider opinion of the trust board doesn't matter as it is the opinion of the members that is the one that counts the most and the one that will be abided to.
The Trust board have our eyes completely wide open as to what it will mean no matter which way the vote goes | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:36 - Jun 30 with 1997 views | Starsky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:22 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
The reason I ask people just to think of what they want the outcome to be is purely because that is the thing that should drive the decision
If you want a complete sale then the only way to that is to attempt litigation, we won't get that without it
If you want Jenkins out then litigation isn't a route towards that happening.
And no I wasnt expecting him to say a 100% win that would be crazy but he is very clearly saying that we should be negotiating hard first and foremost and that has been the route. The fact that he backed what we were saying last night and the way we went about it speaks volumes to me.
But as said that isn't my decision to make so we see what the vote says.
I'm sorry to anyone that thinks I have done a bad job, almost wish I had just watched the football instead... :D |
Don't envy you. It must be an Albatross for you at times like this.
It's a very emotional subject for me and I can't just jump onto the good commercial sense option just yet.
So different now from the days when we ran Petty out of the club.
Premier League football stinks really doesn't it? So much money, we all crave it but the more Sky money coming our way, we have to spend more of it on agents and players just to keep up.
Most of the members want Premier League football at any cost.
I can't forget the principles that the trust and the fans were betrayed.
blaze made a point earlier that if we won the case that Jenkins would not come out of that smelling of roses. His position maybe becoming untenable? |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:40 - Jun 30 with 1966 views | Swanzay |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:26 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
I think generically it has been taken as such - it wasnt a phrase I coined personally but one that has been used. I think it is called such because as far as any working relationship with the club goes then pressing the litigate button will effectively end it is the general viewpoint taken.
I dont disagree with what you say necessarily on the sellers but I do reiterate that the case for unfair prejudice the likely outcome is the buyers buying our shareholding if we win - there isn't a recourse there for those sellers. Rightly or wrongly that is exactly what we have been told as a result of any legal case.
To your point about diluting the influence - we will have no less influence at say 16% shareholding then we do at 21% not in terms of the day to day involvement at the club. |
I totally agree with your comments, there is no validity until the magic 25% is reached.
The decent thing for the sellers apart from notify the Trust in the 1st place last year, was to ensure the Trust reached that magic number. But they decided to screw the Trust over.
I still dont believe that with all the weekly late night gatherings in Morgan's last year and previously, that certain members of the Trust were FULLY aware of the take over proposal, yet said feck all! |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:44 - Jun 30 with 1950 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:22 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
The reason I ask people just to think of what they want the outcome to be is purely because that is the thing that should drive the decision
If you want a complete sale then the only way to that is to attempt litigation, we won't get that without it
If you want Jenkins out then litigation isn't a route towards that happening.
And no I wasnt expecting him to say a 100% win that would be crazy but he is very clearly saying that we should be negotiating hard first and foremost and that has been the route. The fact that he backed what we were saying last night and the way we went about it speaks volumes to me.
But as said that isn't my decision to make so we see what the vote says.
I'm sorry to anyone that thinks I have done a bad job, almost wish I had just watched the football instead... :D |
Phil, you've done a fantastic job. Nobody could do better NQAT. But maybe you've underestimated or misinterpreted the feeling of the fans in all of this? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:47 - Jun 30 with 1930 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:36 - Jun 30 by Starsky |
Don't envy you. It must be an Albatross for you at times like this.
It's a very emotional subject for me and I can't just jump onto the good commercial sense option just yet.
So different now from the days when we ran Petty out of the club.
Premier League football stinks really doesn't it? So much money, we all crave it but the more Sky money coming our way, we have to spend more of it on agents and players just to keep up.
Most of the members want Premier League football at any cost.
I can't forget the principles that the trust and the fans were betrayed.
blaze made a point earlier that if we won the case that Jenkins would not come out of that smelling of roses. His position maybe becoming untenable? |
The massive difference between now and Petty (and remember many of us were around for both) was that petty was a two bit businessman who thought he could make a few quid having spent £1 to get his hands on an asset, an asset that didn't have two of those £1 coins to rub together.
As you have referred to, this is the Premier League and some (many) of the things that happen in it are so far detached from football as I know it then it makes me wonder where it will end.
I cant forgive either (although apparently I am bending over and taking it up the arse - such a constructive comment!) but I have lived this for 15 months and I can see a light that can put £6m in a fund for the Trust that will secure this club for years should it be needed and possibly more on top. Someone stated that the Americans want to make a profit and we would share in that if they secure it through a sale and the continued involvement will ensure that it isn't taken out of the club in ways that we wouldn't want to happen
The point about it being untenable may prove to be right but for me I would rather take the money that is on offer, retain some involvement in the club and go from there. And I firmly believe that had this been done in the right way then most people would have taken the same as well.
Where you are I have been and maybe I'm fortunate enough to have just been there a while back so have taken a few more steps than you - as I've said we will just present to members the facts, information and a recommendation based on pros and cons of each position.
But it really comes back to what people want and is that the chance of a full sale which will be dependent on legal action being taken and a guaranteed end of any input/insight into the football club or take the partial sale on offer with the commitments and see if we can progress the football club from the inside. There are pros and cons to both but I know which one I prefer. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:49 - Jun 30 with 1913 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:35 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
Ah I wondered where that came from - suspect he was firmly tongue in cheek with that statement
All parties involved are aware and have been told since day 1 that my opinion, Stuart's opinion or the wider opinion of the trust board doesn't matter as it is the opinion of the members that is the one that counts the most and the one that will be abided to.
The Trust board have our eyes completely wide open as to what it will mean no matter which way the vote goes |
Maybe tongue in cheek, but a bad choice of word in the current climate. The type of word that can gather pace don't you think?  | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:50 - Jun 30 with 1900 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:40 - Jun 30 by Swanzay |
I totally agree with your comments, there is no validity until the magic 25% is reached.
The decent thing for the sellers apart from notify the Trust in the 1st place last year, was to ensure the Trust reached that magic number. But they decided to screw the Trust over.
I still dont believe that with all the weekly late night gatherings in Morgan's last year and previously, that certain members of the Trust were FULLY aware of the take over proposal, yet said feck all! |
All I can say to you in the last part is that I certainly was not aware until the end of March when we were first officially informed by Messrs Jenkins and Dineen.
And two days after that we sent a letter to all shareholders asking for a copy of the proposed terms and confirming that the Trust may be interested in selling some/all of its stake depending on those terms.
Your second paragraph is absolutely spot on and had that happened then who knows what the last 12 months may have looked like. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:52 - Jun 30 with 1884 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:44 - Jun 30 by morningstar |
Phil, you've done a fantastic job. Nobody could do better NQAT. But maybe you've underestimated or misinterpreted the feeling of the fans in all of this? |
Its an interesting point but I dont believe that to be the case. What I do know though is that the viewpoint on here is very different to the viewpoint last night so there is very much a wide ranging level of views
Add to that the people that I hear from directly who contact us and also those I speak to in various places and actually it's fair more balanced then it can appear from reading/listening to certain sections
Now for the stupid question what does NQAT stand for
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:54 - Jun 30 with 1875 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:29 - Jun 30 by NeathJack |
Phil,
Has the QC been asked for/given his opinion on whether the Trust board recommending acceptance of the Yanks offer would have any prejudicial effect on the case going to court if the members voted against the offer on the table? i.e. Does it weaken the legal route.
Thanks. |
Yes he has and no it doesn't. If it did we wouldn't have made a recommendation | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:54 - Jun 30 with 1872 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:54 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
Yes he has and no it doesn't. If it did we wouldn't have made a recommendation |
Cheers. Good to know. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:59 - Jun 30 with 1838 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:54 - Jun 30 by NeathJack |
Cheers. Good to know. |
Contrary to the belief of some (and you know who they are :D) we do know what we are doing and are acting on the advice being given to us as to how to play this out
Doing it without any successful googling too
For the avoidance of doubt the last part was tongue in cheek with no offence intended | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:02 - Jun 30 with 1816 views | Starsky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:47 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
The massive difference between now and Petty (and remember many of us were around for both) was that petty was a two bit businessman who thought he could make a few quid having spent £1 to get his hands on an asset, an asset that didn't have two of those £1 coins to rub together.
As you have referred to, this is the Premier League and some (many) of the things that happen in it are so far detached from football as I know it then it makes me wonder where it will end.
I cant forgive either (although apparently I am bending over and taking it up the arse - such a constructive comment!) but I have lived this for 15 months and I can see a light that can put £6m in a fund for the Trust that will secure this club for years should it be needed and possibly more on top. Someone stated that the Americans want to make a profit and we would share in that if they secure it through a sale and the continued involvement will ensure that it isn't taken out of the club in ways that we wouldn't want to happen
The point about it being untenable may prove to be right but for me I would rather take the money that is on offer, retain some involvement in the club and go from there. And I firmly believe that had this been done in the right way then most people would have taken the same as well.
Where you are I have been and maybe I'm fortunate enough to have just been there a while back so have taken a few more steps than you - as I've said we will just present to members the facts, information and a recommendation based on pros and cons of each position.
But it really comes back to what people want and is that the chance of a full sale which will be dependent on legal action being taken and a guaranteed end of any input/insight into the football club or take the partial sale on offer with the commitments and see if we can progress the football club from the inside. There are pros and cons to both but I know which one I prefer. |
Thank you for a thoughtful response Phil.
Yes, I'm struggling to deal with the situation, maybe time may help before the vote.
Accepting this deal... im worried about 'the disconnect' creeping into my mindset next season.
Mind you... when you typed "I cant forgive either (although apparently I am bending over and taking it up the arse - such a constructive comment!)"
I'm billing you for my laptop covered in Diet Pepsi, I nearly choked, 😂 | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:02 - Jun 30 with 1808 views | Swanzay |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:54 - Jun 30 by NeathJack |
Cheers. Good to know. |
Phil, When I made this comment:-
I still dont believe that with all the weekly late night gatherings in Morgan's last year and previously, that certain members of the Trust were FULLY aware of the take over proposal, yet said feck all!
I was not referring to you, Im sure we both know who I was referring too, till the early hours and MM top shelf preferences, whilst holding court.... | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:05 - Jun 30 with 1780 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:02 - Jun 30 by Starsky |
Thank you for a thoughtful response Phil.
Yes, I'm struggling to deal with the situation, maybe time may help before the vote.
Accepting this deal... im worried about 'the disconnect' creeping into my mindset next season.
Mind you... when you typed "I cant forgive either (although apparently I am bending over and taking it up the arse - such a constructive comment!)"
I'm billing you for my laptop covered in Diet Pepsi, I nearly choked, 😂 |
Ach you have to have a chuckle somewhere in amongst all of this. Its consumed so much of our time over the past twelve months (and thats not personal thats all of us) that its been more testing than anything that happened under Petty - that was fun but as said those were different times, different levels and different kinds of people
All you can do is make your decision as you see is right based on what we present to you that will include the recommendation but pros and cons for the other options. We are hopeful to hold a Q&A for members as part of that consultation so hopefully you can attend and that may help inform that decision
One of the hardest questions I was asked today was whether someone should vote with the head or the heart leading it as the two viewpoints had different results for them. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:07 - Jun 30 with 1770 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:54 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
Yes he has and no it doesn't. If it did we wouldn't have made a recommendation |
So the QC is 100% correct on this point... but unsure on the rest.
Interesting. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:08 - Jun 30 with 1763 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:02 - Jun 30 by Swanzay |
Phil, When I made this comment:-
I still dont believe that with all the weekly late night gatherings in Morgan's last year and previously, that certain members of the Trust were FULLY aware of the take over proposal, yet said feck all!
I was not referring to you, Im sure we both know who I was referring too, till the early hours and MM top shelf preferences, whilst holding court.... |
Sorry I didn't mean to give you the impression I thought you were talking about me - I didn't take it that way.
For your view I think I Have given my view on this before now and I will always hope my view is the right one on that particular case
Either way I also wish that someone had decided on day 1 "Lets bring the Trust nto this straight away it will be the right thing to do"
Anyway, thats me out of here for the night - been a long day and I need all the beauty sleep I can get despite my new slimmer look that apparently is also relevant to the quality of the deal :D
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:12 - Jun 30 with 1738 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:59 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
The Trust most definitely have not gone soft - please dont confuse recommending not taking a nuclear option as that.
Having considered the facts and options in front of us we believe that taking the rainy day fund and keeping a input that allows us to keep close eye on club governance is a better option then gambling our money on a case that we may lose (and for balance yes I know we may win)
And a case that will not give us what I think from reading this what most people want
However, as said before it isn't my decision so its very soon going to be a call for the members as we take the consultation process all the way through
The simple question to ask yourselves before you vote is what do you want as the result as an individual because the likely outcome to any litigation is a complete sale of the Trust shares.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
For those who want the Trust to maintain a stake that would be a bad outcome.
However for those that want revenge re Huw Jenkins that would be a good option.
The Yanks don't appear to have the funds to buyout the Trust and they hold a warranty over the selling shareholders that no original shareholders agreement existed.
This would mean that the selling shareholders would effectively have to buyout the Trust's stake.
You would assume on same terms as other shareholders - the Trust would therefore sell 68% of 21%.
This would leave 32% of 21% = 6.72% and still the Trust would have Set on the Board (5% required).
The Trust would also be able to sell the residual 6.72% on the same terms as the selling shareholders residual stakes.
The selling shareholders having to cough up 68% of 21% (assume that is equivalent to £21m) = £14.28m under the warranty - would be best form of revenge for a number of posters. (The Yanks don't appear to have the funds available to buyout the Trust on same terma as selling shareholders).
Your post does indicate though that you don't really want to sell the Trusts stake - which I understand - however it does allow the Yanks to make a low ball offer - compared to the selling shareholders.
That simply is not right - Huw Jenkins should have ensured the fans were not low balled - he is our chairman. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:14 - Jun 30 with 1724 views | Swanzay |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:08 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
Sorry I didn't mean to give you the impression I thought you were talking about me - I didn't take it that way.
For your view I think I Have given my view on this before now and I will always hope my view is the right one on that particular case
Either way I also wish that someone had decided on day 1 "Lets bring the Trust nto this straight away it will be the right thing to do"
Anyway, thats me out of here for the night - been a long day and I need all the beauty sleep I can get despite my new slimmer look that apparently is also relevant to the quality of the deal :D
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Irrelevant of what happens, you can certainly hold your head high, thank you for all your hard work in trying to ensure Swansea City FC is a great and special club.
Doffs cap! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
