| Question for the Trust to answer please 20:49 - Dec 18 with 18533 views | _ |
Bulk Vending received £90k+ in the last set of accounts, that's Leigh Dineens company. This is on top of his salary.
Can you explain what Bulk Vending are exactly invoicing the club for?
Can you find this out by Monday 22nd December by any chance? |  |
| |  |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:23 - Dec 19 with 1768 views | dgt73 |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:15 - Dec 19 by exiledclaseboy |
Oh you're right there. There's been tonnes of revisionism happening recently. |
Well your recollection seems to be a bit vague as well. |  |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:25 - Dec 19 with 1754 views | dgt73 |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:19 - Dec 19 by MillJack |
There aren't any Swans fans who want the club to fail. Not one. You just like to label those who are willing to question various goings on in the club as someone who wants the club to fail, there's a difference.
Some people aren't willing to metaphorically stick their fingers in their years and pretend everything is perfect. It clearly isn't as has been evidenced in this thread, and others in recent times. They are no more or less of a supporter of our club than you. [Post edited 19 Dec 2014 20:22]
|
Yes there are some on here. | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:25 - Dec 19 with 1747 views | xmastree |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:11 - Dec 19 by Brynmill_Jack |
The lone voice! Hello Leigh, you've gone a lot fatter since playing for Motspurs 2nds |
I'm not sure who you are but yes he did play for them for awhile and used to join us on the east after. |  | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:27 - Dec 19 with 1736 views | Dr_Winston |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:25 - Dec 19 by dgt73 |
Yes there are some on here. |
There are none on here. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:27 - Dec 19 with 1736 views | jackonicko |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:16 - Dec 19 by dgt73 |
Why didn't you put £50 000 in to buy shares then. ? |
Because I didn't have it in 2001. I gave what I could to the trust - both at the outset and then the Battle for Britton - and 'trusted' that it would be fairly represented and looked after in my interests by those who had the fiduciary duty to do so. I probably gave about 2k in those first few years, with no expectation of return. Not a huge amount, but money I donated willingly.
I could have done it in 2005 but despite the revisionism above, there was never any public opportunity to do so. |  | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:31 - Dec 19 with 1712 views | dgt73 |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:27 - Dec 19 by jackonicko |
Because I didn't have it in 2001. I gave what I could to the trust - both at the outset and then the Battle for Britton - and 'trusted' that it would be fairly represented and looked after in my interests by those who had the fiduciary duty to do so. I probably gave about 2k in those first few years, with no expectation of return. Not a huge amount, but money I donated willingly.
I could have done it in 2005 but despite the revisionism above, there was never any public opportunity to do so. |
And that's life I'm afraid.  | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:33 - Dec 19 with 1704 views | dgt73 |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:27 - Dec 19 by Dr_Winston |
There are none on here. |
Ok I'll call it paranoia instead.  | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:33 - Dec 19 with 1700 views | jackonicko |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:31 - Dec 19 by dgt73 |
And that's life I'm afraid. |
No it's not.
You seem to be deliberately missing the point for whatever reason so let's leave it there. Others seem to have grasped it more quickly so no need to flog this particular horse any longer. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Question for the Trust to answer pleaser on 20:36 - Dec 19 with 1684 views | sixpenses |
| Question for the Trust to answer pleaser on 16:34 - Dec 19 by Swanseajill |
Yes risen to the top. It could be about failure...about going out of the football league due to massive debts and the Inland revenue demanding payment.
There are always some that want to knock down success, and mud sling at those that have brought that success to Its fruition and hopefully beyond. |
Or perhaps take forward that same wonderful intent at the time and fight for it as it was fought for then - before personal greed became a factor for some. The investors have been well rewarded and for some the vision become blurred. They are not the only ones who put in money or massive effort as you know all too well.
If they want to sell the shares and make multi millions - good luck to them if they are able, you cannot take it with you but you can leave behind a legacy by establishing the trust as majority share holders. The Trust is not a tame dog it was born of passion and that passion is what can protect the club now. No new foreign investor is going to want a substantial shareholder on their back at every move with the media and supporters 4 square behind them.
I think you will find conflict of interest rules extend slightly beyond the houses of parliament. They are there to help ensure financial fair play and I agree with others that it is fairly incomprehensible to me why any fair and straightforward organisation would have a problem with them in fact not insist they were in place to protect their own reputations. | | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:40 - Dec 19 with 1664 views | xmastree |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:27 - Dec 19 by jackonicko |
Because I didn't have it in 2001. I gave what I could to the trust - both at the outset and then the Battle for Britton - and 'trusted' that it would be fairly represented and looked after in my interests by those who had the fiduciary duty to do so. I probably gave about 2k in those first few years, with no expectation of return. Not a huge amount, but money I donated willingly.
I could have done it in 2005 but despite the revisionism above, there was never any public opportunity to do so. |
If you were that close to the trust then you would have known they were in desperate need for cash for years after 2002, and did ask people so if you had it then then I'm sure you could have put it in. They spoke to people about putting money in that never came to fruition including some guy who eventually ruined Barry town ( I think ) | | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:41 - Dec 19 with 1672 views | the_oracle |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:25 - Dec 19 by xmastree |
I'm not sure who you are but yes he did play for them for awhile and used to join us on the east after. |
Motspurs! . I also played or them. ( as did one or two other posters on here). | | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 21:28 - Dec 19 with 1620 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:41 - Dec 19 by the_oracle |
Motspurs! . I also played or them. ( as did one or two other posters on here). |
You're not winky are you pmsl ? |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 22:33 - Dec 19 with 1564 views | the_oracle |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 21:28 - Dec 19 by Brynmill_Jack |
You're not winky are you pmsl ? |
Nope, Unlike Winky I still haven't retired (three times in his case)! | | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer pleaser on 09:23 - Dec 20 with 1481 views | Shaky |
| Question for the Trust to answer pleaser on 18:40 - Dec 19 by The_Doorman |
Do you think Mark Gower deserves a chance tomorrow? Especially with our poor away form?
As a clue, I suggest you have a quick look on p457 of Exploring Corporate Strategy by Johnson and Scholes for the model answer. |
The bizarre has turned positively Kafkaesque. Quite like that |  |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:30 - Dec 20 with 1441 views | jackonicko |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 20:40 - Dec 19 by xmastree |
If you were that close to the trust then you would have known they were in desperate need for cash for years after 2002, and did ask people so if you had it then then I'm sure you could have put it in. They spoke to people about putting money in that never came to fruition including some guy who eventually ruined Barry town ( I think ) |
I certainly don't recall it quite like the way you do.
In the period immediately following the acquisition, yes things were tight. Hence campaigns like Battle for Britton which many fans were putting £5 per month into - or more, voluntarily - to keep an important player at the club.
However, by the time LD put in his stake, the club was more on an even keel. 6 months before he invested, the club had made its first cash transfer fee payment of £35k for Paul Connor. This doesn't sound like a club that was desperate for a £50k investment. The club had also made some decent free transfers in people like Willy Gueret, Garry Monk, Andy Gurney, Kevin Austen.
The new stadium was being built and the club was moving into it the following season.
Some people may have been confused by the fact that LD carried on being the SD for a while after he made his personal investment. That can be excused seeing as the SD or the Trust clearly didn't think it was important enough to tell its members that their representative now had a personal financial investment. I certainly didn't find out until some months after it happened - at which point it was a done deal. And he didn't stand down as Supporters Director for quite some months after that.
So, no. I don't remember the history of it in quite the way you do. | | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:45 - Dec 20 with 1427 views | _ |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:30 - Dec 20 by jackonicko |
I certainly don't recall it quite like the way you do.
In the period immediately following the acquisition, yes things were tight. Hence campaigns like Battle for Britton which many fans were putting £5 per month into - or more, voluntarily - to keep an important player at the club.
However, by the time LD put in his stake, the club was more on an even keel. 6 months before he invested, the club had made its first cash transfer fee payment of £35k for Paul Connor. This doesn't sound like a club that was desperate for a £50k investment. The club had also made some decent free transfers in people like Willy Gueret, Garry Monk, Andy Gurney, Kevin Austen.
The new stadium was being built and the club was moving into it the following season.
Some people may have been confused by the fact that LD carried on being the SD for a while after he made his personal investment. That can be excused seeing as the SD or the Trust clearly didn't think it was important enough to tell its members that their representative now had a personal financial investment. I certainly didn't find out until some months after it happened - at which point it was a done deal. And he didn't stand down as Supporters Director for quite some months after that.
So, no. I don't remember the history of it in quite the way you do. |
So like Leigh explained to me last night, he had made an investment into the club and bought his shares and continued to act as Supporters Director.
I even have emails from him in that time where I am basically flogging a dead horse and him with no interest in acting out his role as defined in the Trust Statutes.
So, by this reckoning, could this mean that Huw Cooze could already be a shareholder and they just don't think it's important to tell us? | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:57 - Dec 20 with 1410 views | jackonicko |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:45 - Dec 20 by _ |
So like Leigh explained to me last night, he had made an investment into the club and bought his shares and continued to act as Supporters Director.
I even have emails from him in that time where I am basically flogging a dead horse and him with no interest in acting out his role as defined in the Trust Statutes.
So, by this reckoning, could this mean that Huw Cooze could already be a shareholder and they just don't think it's important to tell us? |
I can categorically confirm that that isn't the case. | | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:59 - Dec 20 with 1407 views | _ |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:57 - Dec 20 by jackonicko |
I can categorically confirm that that isn't the case. |
Yes. I would hope not but you can surely understand some very serious worries, can't you? | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 12:00 - Dec 20 with 1405 views | dgt73 |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:45 - Dec 20 by _ |
So like Leigh explained to me last night, he had made an investment into the club and bought his shares and continued to act as Supporters Director.
I even have emails from him in that time where I am basically flogging a dead horse and him with no interest in acting out his role as defined in the Trust Statutes.
So, by this reckoning, could this mean that Huw Cooze could already be a shareholder and they just don't think it's important to tell us? |
More paranoia i see.  | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 12:05 - Dec 20 with 1389 views | _ |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 12:00 - Dec 20 by dgt73 |
More paranoia i see. |
Well no but it leads on to an interesting and pertinent point. In the threads recently involving this subject it has been suggested I go through the Trust first.
Well I tried that in 2006 and it got me nowhere. Looking back i wasn't even talking to our Supporters Director, I was in fact talking to a club shareholder. | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 12:07 - Dec 20 with 1386 views | jackonicko |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 11:59 - Dec 20 by _ |
Yes. I would hope not but you can surely understand some very serious worries, can't you? |
I can, but I don't have those worries. I genuinely don't believe it could happen again.
It is something that happened 10 years ago in a different time, a different place. Phil knows I have strong views on the subject, I don't think it would happen on his watch, and it is of course one event from a long time ago.
That doesn't stop me being a strong supporter and firm believer in the trust and its model of working. And a strong supporter of those that give their time to make that happen. This shouldn't be used as a stick to beat those that are critically important to our club at this time.
I am however irritated by some of the historical revisionism that now goes on. | | | |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 12:07 - Dec 20 with 1386 views | Jackfath |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 12:05 - Dec 20 by _ |
Well no but it leads on to an interesting and pertinent point. In the threads recently involving this subject it has been suggested I go through the Trust first.
Well I tried that in 2006 and it got me nowhere. Looking back i wasn't even talking to our Supporters Director, I was in fact talking to a club shareholder. |
It's all Sumblers fault. |  |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 12:10 - Dec 20 with 1382 views | dgt73 |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 12:05 - Dec 20 by _ |
Well no but it leads on to an interesting and pertinent point. In the threads recently involving this subject it has been suggested I go through the Trust first.
Well I tried that in 2006 and it got me nowhere. Looking back i wasn't even talking to our Supporters Director, I was in fact talking to a club shareholder. |
Who cares. LD if he meets you he will just humour you and do you really think he'll tell you information that the club doesn't want released, yeah ok. | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 13:12 - Dec 20 with 1347 views | perchrockjack |
It might be me but if I were a director, I d simply answer to shareholders not an internet persona.
Its really disturbing to see ,frankly.
Just as well Dineen isn't a disabled female or/and an older one | |
| |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 13:28 - Dec 20 with 1327 views | jackonicko |
| Question for the Trust to answer please on 13:12 - Dec 20 by perchrockjack |
It might be me but if I were a director, I d simply answer to shareholders not an internet persona.
Its really disturbing to see ,frankly.
Just as well Dineen isn't a disabled female or/and an older one |
I still genuinely don't see the issue. People are reacting to it being T2C, not the event.
LD has made similar offers before and I didn't see multiple threads on the subject. It's a one on one meeting between the vice chair and a supporter, who has strong views on a subject. It's not an official meeting.
There is a difference between representing some questions from fans and being a fans representative.
And this was started on here by Darran, remember. Had T2C ducked the meeting, many would have been all over him saying he didn't have the balls to back it up.
What's the issue? I'm surprised it's happening, but I don't see a problem with it. There seems to be a lot of faux outrage on here today. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
