| The Winter chap, 23:08 - Oct 14 with 3856 views | builthjack |
Is he mute ? |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |  |
| The Winter chap, on 16:14 - Oct 19 with 875 views | onehunglow |
lol.
A good point |  |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 17:01 - Oct 19 with 847 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 13:31 - Oct 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Winter to Birch transfer involves a switch from Chairman to CEO. The Chairman is what it says on the tin and he is duty bound to be reasonable and equitable to all members on the board including the silent man from the Trust. He does not communicate at all.
I have not doubt the Trust are seen as an irritating pain in the neck and Birch went out of his way to smooze them and butter up the fans. Winter it seems will not do this and it may habour a change of approach.
The Trust have demanded to know the reason for the board room change and the long term strategy of the club. The club can ask the same of the Trust who have been considering to take other members of the board to court and did not show up for mediation according to the US people. They have been considering legal action for a very long time. [Post edited 19 Oct 2020 13:44]
|
- So a CEO should be allowed to treat other shareholders and fans with contempt?
- next paragraph is at odds with people who say repeatedly the trust is an irrelevance these days, so this is good news.
- i never trusted Birch but he did at least provide some insight at key moments.
- the Americans could ask the same - maybe they have. If they have their thoughts haven't been relayed back to the fans though. The information they want is easily accessible if they want to look too.
- I for one am glad the trust aren't taking the decision lightly. The time it has taken is frustrating but understandable. |  |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 17:22 - Oct 19 with 834 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 14:51 - Oct 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I actually also consider the other sides point of view and share them on here for some semblence of balance. I read that two US people flew over for mediation meeting but the Trust did not accept them as approprate people to deal with and declined to attend. Written in the Daily Mail from coment from the lawyers of the US people.
The US people that run the club and are responsible for the team and team managers. It is they who have loaned money to the club while the millionaire fans body has no money due to mismanagement of their asset and failure to put any of their shares up for sale in the PL.
They are also prepared to leave the club for deacades with a dubious claim of wanting to return to save the club down the line. Only a mug would believe that one. They are prepared to give away upto half of their holding in legal fees and charges. [Post edited 19 Oct 2020 15:11]
|
- do we know the identity of these 2 Americans that turned up then?
- just to reiterate we know nothing of the terms of this 'loan'. But they are wealthy individuals if they want to do that they can. If they'd done their due diligence maybe they wouldn't have bought a club that apparently needs cash loans. They did and they've chosen to do so. We owe them no thanks this. You also forget to mention that none of the other shareholders have loaned the club money recently either. Or even been asked to.
- Yet again, the trust is not the football clubs personal entrepreneur tasked with looking for ways to gain money to fill the clubs transfer fund. They still own 21%&have a director on the board so as such they have protected their asset (which is a bad term) for their holding and as such have never needed or really wanted to sell until the material change that occurred.
- As usual you're being disingenuous. The trust would not 'leave' the club were they to have their shares bought. They will probably act pretty much as they do now maybe without a place on the board (although it seems the Americans are letting non shareholders on now anyway), taking the owners to task when required. Many supporters trusts do not have shareholdings.
- why do you think it's a dubious claim? What do they have to gain by having money but not ever intending to use it?
- the last sentence is as usual complete scaremongering speculation on your behalf. | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 17:24 - Oct 19 with 834 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 17:01 - Oct 19 by Chief |
- So a CEO should be allowed to treat other shareholders and fans with contempt?
- next paragraph is at odds with people who say repeatedly the trust is an irrelevance these days, so this is good news.
- i never trusted Birch but he did at least provide some insight at key moments.
- the Americans could ask the same - maybe they have. If they have their thoughts haven't been relayed back to the fans though. The information they want is easily accessible if they want to look too.
- I for one am glad the trust aren't taking the decision lightly. The time it has taken is frustrating but understandable. |
As I understand it the CEO takes all decsiions in the best interests of Swansea city football club.. The Chairman of the other hand chair board meetings in an equitable manner and in a minor shareholer is unhappy will hear their point of view. He could direct the CEO to act accordingly.
The Trust new board have inherited a difficult situation from the preceeding board. I would advice them to take independent advice from a respected business consultant person to advise them on their future. He would study the Trusts history and business model and objectives and advise from a position of complete impartiality with no vested interest. Common sense really. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 17:31 - Oct 19 with 829 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 17:24 - Oct 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As I understand it the CEO takes all decsiions in the best interests of Swansea city football club.. The Chairman of the other hand chair board meetings in an equitable manner and in a minor shareholer is unhappy will hear their point of view. He could direct the CEO to act accordingly.
The Trust new board have inherited a difficult situation from the preceeding board. I would advice them to take independent advice from a respected business consultant person to advise them on their future. He would study the Trusts history and business model and objectives and advise from a position of complete impartiality with no vested interest. Common sense really. |
- Do you really put that much stock in the difference in roles? CEO / Chairman whoever they should atill be open, visible and provide information to all shareholders, as well as the fans. The Americas may think keeping the trust in the dark is a good thing, but how can a lack of communication with the fans be looked at as a good thing? Or a good way to act?
- Good points in the last paragraph, I totally agree. | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 18:32 - Oct 19 with 808 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 17:22 - Oct 19 by Chief |
- do we know the identity of these 2 Americans that turned up then?
- just to reiterate we know nothing of the terms of this 'loan'. But they are wealthy individuals if they want to do that they can. If they'd done their due diligence maybe they wouldn't have bought a club that apparently needs cash loans. They did and they've chosen to do so. We owe them no thanks this. You also forget to mention that none of the other shareholders have loaned the club money recently either. Or even been asked to.
- Yet again, the trust is not the football clubs personal entrepreneur tasked with looking for ways to gain money to fill the clubs transfer fund. They still own 21%&have a director on the board so as such they have protected their asset (which is a bad term) for their holding and as such have never needed or really wanted to sell until the material change that occurred.
- As usual you're being disingenuous. The trust would not 'leave' the club were they to have their shares bought. They will probably act pretty much as they do now maybe without a place on the board (although it seems the Americans are letting non shareholders on now anyway), taking the owners to task when required. Many supporters trusts do not have shareholdings.
- why do you think it's a dubious claim? What do they have to gain by having money but not ever intending to use it?
- the last sentence is as usual complete scaremongering speculation on your behalf. |
All businesses need cash loans from time to time to keep the cash flow sweet. That why non payment of wages is a very bad sign as it means the source of loans has pulled the plug. I do not know if the other shareholders have been asked to contribute but they will be asked if it is turned into equity as they all will be diluted otherwise. In that situation none of the "fans" of Swansea city will invest. We do not owe the US owners thanks but should at least offer them some respect.
If the Trust win their case they will leave the club for sure. In fact I would imagine they will be banned from the ground and removed forceibly if necessay with alsations barking at their heals.
The Trust have nothing to gain at all from having money without ever intending to use it. As I explained to you with a record of litigation on their CV they are unlikely to find dancing partners in future for access to their inflation ravaged cash pot. The legal case makes no sense. The Trust will be better off losing than wining.
As a Trust memeber who voted for legal action you must know how much it would cost. The time taken for an accepted deal has taken months and you can be sure the fees are not reducing. You would not have voted for legal action unless you knew how much it would cost surey? That would be irresponible of you. [Post edited 19 Oct 2020 18:37]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 19:25 - Oct 19 with 800 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 18:32 - Oct 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
All businesses need cash loans from time to time to keep the cash flow sweet. That why non payment of wages is a very bad sign as it means the source of loans has pulled the plug. I do not know if the other shareholders have been asked to contribute but they will be asked if it is turned into equity as they all will be diluted otherwise. In that situation none of the "fans" of Swansea city will invest. We do not owe the US owners thanks but should at least offer them some respect.
If the Trust win their case they will leave the club for sure. In fact I would imagine they will be banned from the ground and removed forceibly if necessay with alsations barking at their heals.
The Trust have nothing to gain at all from having money without ever intending to use it. As I explained to you with a record of litigation on their CV they are unlikely to find dancing partners in future for access to their inflation ravaged cash pot. The legal case makes no sense. The Trust will be better off losing than wining.
As a Trust memeber who voted for legal action you must know how much it would cost. The time taken for an accepted deal has taken months and you can be sure the fees are not reducing. You would not have voted for legal action unless you knew how much it would cost surey? That would be irresponible of you. [Post edited 19 Oct 2020 18:37]
|
- yes well that maybe true, the Americans should have known then that them becoming majority would mean they'd be putting loans in. Respect works both ways. These are the people who deliberately kept the supporters trust out of negotiations&are now looking to dilute their holding.
- so they are going to ban season ticket holders that trust members / board members from their seats in the ground? Was that would be someway to earn some respect from the fan base.
- why do you keep saying they aren't intending to use the money?
- Any balanced 'dance partner' will realise the situation after due diligence and see that not only was litigation justified, but undertaken after all previous avenues have been exhausted. Are you forgetting the Americans are also litigeous? Conveniently ignoring that.
- I don't know how much it costs&I don't think it would be wise to make such information public. There are of course trust board members who will know but I'm confident they wouldn't pursue the case if it wasn't viable. You completely guess the costs &circumstances of the case. As we know sometimes the losers are ordered to pay the winners costs, but of course that's another one of your omissions. | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 23:40 - Oct 19 with 771 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 19:25 - Oct 19 by Chief |
- yes well that maybe true, the Americans should have known then that them becoming majority would mean they'd be putting loans in. Respect works both ways. These are the people who deliberately kept the supporters trust out of negotiations&are now looking to dilute their holding.
- so they are going to ban season ticket holders that trust members / board members from their seats in the ground? Was that would be someway to earn some respect from the fan base.
- why do you keep saying they aren't intending to use the money?
- Any balanced 'dance partner' will realise the situation after due diligence and see that not only was litigation justified, but undertaken after all previous avenues have been exhausted. Are you forgetting the Americans are also litigeous? Conveniently ignoring that.
- I don't know how much it costs&I don't think it would be wise to make such information public. There are of course trust board members who will know but I'm confident they wouldn't pursue the case if it wasn't viable. You completely guess the costs &circumstances of the case. As we know sometimes the losers are ordered to pay the winners costs, but of course that's another one of your omissions. |
They might get their legal court costs aout £1.5m estimated but not their funders fees general considered tp be 40-60% of the overall value. You are clearly not too interested in the detail. Why should you be?. Its not your money. As I said the Members are to blame as unsuitable guardians of their funds. They just do as they are told being fed on a diet of anti American propoganda. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Winter chap, on 04:13 - Oct 20 with 740 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 23:40 - Oct 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They might get their legal court costs aout £1.5m estimated but not their funders fees general considered tp be 40-60% of the overall value. You are clearly not too interested in the detail. Why should you be?. Its not your money. As I said the Members are to blame as unsuitable guardians of their funds. They just do as they are told being fed on a diet of anti American propoganda. |
- Again, your figures are completely made up. The other day, before you were even considering the funders fees you were saying the trust could receive as little as 40% of the award after legal fees. Now you're saying they'd only be £1.5 mill? Your estimates vary wildly.
- I would be interested in the detail, but I'm also fully aware that certain details should not be in the public domain.
- Well no that's not really case is it, in the past some of the more vocal trust board members were outspoken about not going to court.
- I can only speak for myself - I do not need any 'propaganda' (I'd like to see some of the examples you have of this) to decide the course of action. The bare facts alone were enough for me. | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 12:58 - Oct 20 with 678 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 04:13 - Oct 20 by Chief |
- Again, your figures are completely made up. The other day, before you were even considering the funders fees you were saying the trust could receive as little as 40% of the award after legal fees. Now you're saying they'd only be £1.5 mill? Your estimates vary wildly.
- I would be interested in the detail, but I'm also fully aware that certain details should not be in the public domain.
- Well no that's not really case is it, in the past some of the more vocal trust board members were outspoken about not going to court.
- I can only speak for myself - I do not need any 'propaganda' (I'd like to see some of the examples you have of this) to decide the course of action. The bare facts alone were enough for me. |
The bare facts are the legal costs are estimated to be around £1.5m and the Trust have £880,000 in the bank. They cannot afford legal action on their own. They therefore need funding from outside parties. It is the funders who will decide if they have a 'stong case' not anyone else and they will look at both side of the dispute not just the Trust's that was presented to the QC.
As a member you do not even understand the difference between court fees estimated at £1.5m and funders fees which could be anything. The funding will be a no win no fee type arrangement but the funder may demand no win big fee if they are not comfortable. This would have to be paid in club shares. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 13:44 - Oct 20 with 668 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 12:58 - Oct 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The bare facts are the legal costs are estimated to be around £1.5m and the Trust have £880,000 in the bank. They cannot afford legal action on their own. They therefore need funding from outside parties. It is the funders who will decide if they have a 'stong case' not anyone else and they will look at both side of the dispute not just the Trust's that was presented to the QC.
As a member you do not even understand the difference between court fees estimated at £1.5m and funders fees which could be anything. The funding will be a no win no fee type arrangement but the funder may demand no win big fee if they are not comfortable. This would have to be paid in club shares. |
Sorry I made an error I thought you were talking about the lawyers fees again.
But you have just said again there that court fees will be 1.5mill which is of course a vast contrast to the figures you've banded about previously (sometimes the trust only getting 40% of the award - 9 / 10 mill so 10/11 mill in fees out of the settlement)? And you were saying this before any funding fees were ever discussed.
So what am I misunderstanding exactly? [Post edited 20 Oct 2020 13:55]
| |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 14:25 - Oct 20 with 651 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 13:44 - Oct 20 by Chief |
Sorry I made an error I thought you were talking about the lawyers fees again.
But you have just said again there that court fees will be 1.5mill which is of course a vast contrast to the figures you've banded about previously (sometimes the trust only getting 40% of the award - 9 / 10 mill so 10/11 mill in fees out of the settlement)? And you were saying this before any funding fees were ever discussed.
So what am I misunderstanding exactly? [Post edited 20 Oct 2020 13:55]
|
Asuume a 40% funders fee. 40% of £21m is £8.4m. This leaves £12.6m with £1.5m court fees this becomes £11.1m.
There is most probably tax on this on capital gains or other taxes perhaps upto 20%. Tax is a complex matter but I cannot see any justification for zero tax. That leaves £8.9m.
The Trust s share are worth approximately £400k per 1%, perhaps 1/3 of the PL valuation not including any Covid 19 discount. This values the Trust 21% at around £8.4m.
They are therefore going to court for the benefit of the funders and lawyers not themselves. The members could not vote with open eyes without these fiures being available in writing. The possiblity of legal action should be reviewed by an independent finacial secialist to prove to the members that this is a sensible course of action. I beleive it is not. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 14:52 - Oct 20 with 645 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 14:25 - Oct 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Asuume a 40% funders fee. 40% of £21m is £8.4m. This leaves £12.6m with £1.5m court fees this becomes £11.1m.
There is most probably tax on this on capital gains or other taxes perhaps upto 20%. Tax is a complex matter but I cannot see any justification for zero tax. That leaves £8.9m.
The Trust s share are worth approximately £400k per 1%, perhaps 1/3 of the PL valuation not including any Covid 19 discount. This values the Trust 21% at around £8.4m.
They are therefore going to court for the benefit of the funders and lawyers not themselves. The members could not vote with open eyes without these fiures being available in writing. The possiblity of legal action should be reviewed by an independent finacial secialist to prove to the members that this is a sensible course of action. I beleive it is not. |
- ok well these are not concrete figures by any means, especially the arrangements between the funders and the trust.
- you were previously saying with legal fees alone the trust could only receive as little as 40% of the award. So that is big shift in your figures.
- Other posters have stated there would be no tax to be paid.
- wouldn't the award be for the amount (i.e. on same terms) as when the sale was?
- Yea well we'll see how things proceed when the trust have concluded their negotiations with the relevant parties. | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 15:00 - Oct 20 with 643 views | Chief |
For someone so opposed to the trust, you seem to be pretty vociferous in your opposition of legal action (despite you claiming it could result in the trust 'leaving' the club for good, which presumably you think is a good thing)  | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 15:52 - Oct 20 with 631 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 15:00 - Oct 20 by Chief |
For someone so opposed to the trust, you seem to be pretty vociferous in your opposition of legal action (despite you claiming it could result in the trust 'leaving' the club for good, which presumably you think is a good thing) |
The Trust is no value to Swansea city purely on the basis of the people that run it. Sensible people with good common sense appear to have been over ruled by aggressive people with scores to settle. A recipe for disaster.
If its aim is to protect football in the city all it has to do is build up significant cash pile by selling shares in the club at the top of the market (in the Premier league) and investing wisely on global markets. I have not read anywhere it is not able to do this.
Simultaenously they can invest in the club where required to maintain a 5% holding for a seat on the board. They should not try to run the club as they have no experience of this. They should not be against other shareholder selling which is normal in business. They can agree to tag on and drag on agreement for their 5% but should maintain good relations with the other club owners at all times. This is called 'networking'. The Trust have been desperately poor at this.
The current owners are clearly not fly by night owners but they could sell up to unsuitable owners in the futre. There is nothing to stop this happeniing. With £25m in the bank earning 4% per annum they can take a view as to whether it would be wise to reinvest with such people in the future to go back to a 5% holding.
They have to be people the are "easy to do business with". This is clearly not the case now. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 16:32 - Oct 20 with 613 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 15:52 - Oct 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust is no value to Swansea city purely on the basis of the people that run it. Sensible people with good common sense appear to have been over ruled by aggressive people with scores to settle. A recipe for disaster.
If its aim is to protect football in the city all it has to do is build up significant cash pile by selling shares in the club at the top of the market (in the Premier league) and investing wisely on global markets. I have not read anywhere it is not able to do this.
Simultaenously they can invest in the club where required to maintain a 5% holding for a seat on the board. They should not try to run the club as they have no experience of this. They should not be against other shareholder selling which is normal in business. They can agree to tag on and drag on agreement for their 5% but should maintain good relations with the other club owners at all times. This is called 'networking'. The Trust have been desperately poor at this.
The current owners are clearly not fly by night owners but they could sell up to unsuitable owners in the futre. There is nothing to stop this happeniing. With £25m in the bank earning 4% per annum they can take a view as to whether it would be wise to reinvest with such people in the future to go back to a 5% holding.
They have to be people the are "easy to do business with". This is clearly not the case now. |
- Wrong, the trust has no value to the American owners. It is important to the football club.
- well the trust were wronged so I can understand people seeking revenge, but you are being disingenuous because there are obviously are reasons for pursuing the case.
- Yet again, there was never a need to sell until they were excluded. And anyway if the Americans are forced to buy the shares it would be at Premier league prices wouldn't it?
- the 5% shareholder on the board rule has been scrapped.
- Who said anything about them running the club?
- Other shareholders selling maybe normal and above board but deliberately deceiving other shareholders is not.
- The trust have tried their best to 'network' and communicate, unfortunately the same courtesy hasn't been extended back to them by the Americans. With the previous owners the trust were acused of being too close and cosy with them!
- why do you they aren't good to do business with? They've made several attempts to do just that but it's the Americans who've messed about. This is on top of the way they bought their shares through dishonesty&also being litigious (and losing by the way) seeing as thar seems to be your yardstick | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 18:06 - Oct 20 with 591 views | KeithHaynes |
| The Winter chap, on 16:32 - Oct 20 by Chief |
- Wrong, the trust has no value to the American owners. It is important to the football club.
- well the trust were wronged so I can understand people seeking revenge, but you are being disingenuous because there are obviously are reasons for pursuing the case.
- Yet again, there was never a need to sell until they were excluded. And anyway if the Americans are forced to buy the shares it would be at Premier league prices wouldn't it?
- the 5% shareholder on the board rule has been scrapped.
- Who said anything about them running the club?
- Other shareholders selling maybe normal and above board but deliberately deceiving other shareholders is not.
- The trust have tried their best to 'network' and communicate, unfortunately the same courtesy hasn't been extended back to them by the Americans. With the previous owners the trust were acused of being too close and cosy with them!
- why do you they aren't good to do business with? They've made several attempts to do just that but it's the Americans who've messed about. This is on top of the way they bought their shares through dishonesty&also being litigious (and losing by the way) seeing as thar seems to be your yardstick |
I’ll stick my neck out now.
Get it sorted, this has gone on for long enough.
Just a simple fan me. |  |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 18:30 - Oct 20 with 579 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 18:06 - Oct 20 by KeithHaynes |
I’ll stick my neck out now.
Get it sorted, this has gone on for long enough.
Just a simple fan me. |
Yea hopefully it won't be long. | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 21:39 - Oct 20 with 556 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 16:32 - Oct 20 by Chief |
- Wrong, the trust has no value to the American owners. It is important to the football club.
- well the trust were wronged so I can understand people seeking revenge, but you are being disingenuous because there are obviously are reasons for pursuing the case.
- Yet again, there was never a need to sell until they were excluded. And anyway if the Americans are forced to buy the shares it would be at Premier league prices wouldn't it?
- the 5% shareholder on the board rule has been scrapped.
- Who said anything about them running the club?
- Other shareholders selling maybe normal and above board but deliberately deceiving other shareholders is not.
- The trust have tried their best to 'network' and communicate, unfortunately the same courtesy hasn't been extended back to them by the Americans. With the previous owners the trust were acused of being too close and cosy with them!
- why do you they aren't good to do business with? They've made several attempts to do just that but it's the Americans who've messed about. This is on top of the way they bought their shares through dishonesty&also being litigious (and losing by the way) seeing as thar seems to be your yardstick |
Just the opposite to what I said. So its just there for others to assess. I suspect the demands from the funders will be un acceptably high and should go back to the members for approval.
The 5% holding does have statutary rights for UK shareholders in law so is a key milestone for shareholders.
The low holding is managable for shareholder with stretch finances and they can match fiund new investment at £1 for every £20.
The Trust spent 4 months getting no where with the US people in 2017 even with mandate and have spent 2 years making adeal with funders which is still not over the line. They have also failed to mediate which you would think would be easy. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 21:57 - Oct 20 with 543 views | onehunglow |
Plenty of nous on here.
Why aren't you running the club? | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 07:15 - Oct 21 with 520 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 21:39 - Oct 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Just the opposite to what I said. So its just there for others to assess. I suspect the demands from the funders will be un acceptably high and should go back to the members for approval.
The 5% holding does have statutary rights for UK shareholders in law so is a key milestone for shareholders.
The low holding is managable for shareholder with stretch finances and they can match fiund new investment at £1 for every £20.
The Trust spent 4 months getting no where with the US people in 2017 even with mandate and have spent 2 years making adeal with funders which is still not over the line. They have also failed to mediate which you would think would be easy. |
- why do you think they'd be too high? The QC who yourself has speculated could have been engaged on a no win / no fee basis said it's a sound case.
- that maybe the case but we now know there are board members who do not have 5%.
- it takes two to tango. If the other parties are unwilling to engage despite having numerous opportunities to so, how is that a failure of the trust? That's an indictment on the other parties.
- why do you think they've been trying to do that for 2 years? Is there any actual indication that is the case?
Crazy bias again - especially in the last point. See you get carried away&throw in points like that with no basis, lack of awareness&reality of the situation. You lose credibility. [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 7:48]
| |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 13:39 - Oct 21 with 475 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 07:15 - Oct 21 by Chief |
- why do you think they'd be too high? The QC who yourself has speculated could have been engaged on a no win / no fee basis said it's a sound case.
- that maybe the case but we now know there are board members who do not have 5%.
- it takes two to tango. If the other parties are unwilling to engage despite having numerous opportunities to so, how is that a failure of the trust? That's an indictment on the other parties.
- why do you think they've been trying to do that for 2 years? Is there any actual indication that is the case?
Crazy bias again - especially in the last point. See you get carried away&throw in points like that with no basis, lack of awareness&reality of the situation. You lose credibility. [Post edited 21 Oct 2020 7:48]
|
QC people do not do 'No win no fee'. The QC would not be representing Swansea I would imagine on £3000 per hour. He would have, I imagine, been given one day to review the Trust's case using information given to him by the Trust.
The local shareholders might be asked to contribute to the new cash call and buy new shares. They might want to do this to mainatain their 5% holding and the statutary rights given to them by law that go along with it. They appear to have no trouble in their relations with the US major shareholder.
The way forward for the Trust is to get an independant review of the way they have been run for the last 5-6 years including strategy, statements made, objectives, financial management and likelihood of victory in their legal case including costs. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 13:53 - Oct 21 with 462 views | onehunglow |
3000 per hour.
That is not what Barristers will tell you at all. | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 14:43 - Oct 21 with 450 views | Chief |
| The Winter chap, on 13:39 - Oct 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
QC people do not do 'No win no fee'. The QC would not be representing Swansea I would imagine on £3000 per hour. He would have, I imagine, been given one day to review the Trust's case using information given to him by the Trust.
The local shareholders might be asked to contribute to the new cash call and buy new shares. They might want to do this to mainatain their 5% holding and the statutary rights given to them by law that go along with it. They appear to have no trouble in their relations with the US major shareholder.
The way forward for the Trust is to get an independant review of the way they have been run for the last 5-6 years including strategy, statements made, objectives, financial management and likelihood of victory in their legal case including costs. |
- right ok so to be clear then the trust engaged a QC to advise on the case (which they have and advised its a strong case). Beyond that we don't know how much they are charging, but they have no vested interest then too.
- the legal company who takes on the case to go to court maybe on a no win no fee type contract.
- what new cash call?
- I assume you're referring to HJ/MM when you say they have no trouble with the majority shareholders? Because the trust obviously do. HJ was removed from his job by them. So not sure the validity of that point.
- always healthy for people and organisations to evaluate performance and take on constructive feedback. | |
| |
| The Winter chap, on 15:30 - Oct 21 with 439 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The Winter chap, on 14:43 - Oct 21 by Chief |
- right ok so to be clear then the trust engaged a QC to advise on the case (which they have and advised its a strong case). Beyond that we don't know how much they are charging, but they have no vested interest then too.
- the legal company who takes on the case to go to court maybe on a no win no fee type contract.
- what new cash call?
- I assume you're referring to HJ/MM when you say they have no trouble with the majority shareholders? Because the trust obviously do. HJ was removed from his job by them. So not sure the validity of that point.
- always healthy for people and organisations to evaluate performance and take on constructive feedback. |
The QC will be on very big bucks. What I quoted is typical. He will only have recieved information from the Trust which would have been one eyed. He told them legal action was a last resort.
The legal funders have to have a 'no win no fee' arrangement as the Trust do not have enough money theselves. The legal fees will be around £1.5m and the Trust ony has £880k.
The new cash call in the Silverstein loan potentiall to be converted into new shares. The local shareholders will have to cough up to retain their 5% rights prorata as I understand it. What people like yourself fail to iunderstand is the stupendous job HJ and others did 2002 -2016 when no one was asked to invest anything as the club grew. This is not normal.
HJ was not removed from his job he resigned. He stated if he could not turn around the clubs fortunes he would step down. That is what he did giving up a well paid job.
Any sensible organisation woud take independent professional advice at this critical stage. | |
| 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.
