| Trust meeting tonight 20:37 - Feb 17 with 7137 views | KeithHaynes |
Plenty of opinions from those who have never done anything.
Makes me laugh.
A lot.
Criticising from a position of after the event.
When at the end of the day they did nothing in the first place.
Mind you half of those that did ...
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust meeting tonight on 14:59 - Feb 18 with 1501 views | QJumpingJack |
I would have thought the chances of the Trust were winning were 100% when one of the owners put the entire blame on the old owners - and saying it in public / while it was being recorded. |  | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 15:12 - Feb 18 with 1479 views | Boundy |
| Trust meeting tonight on 14:28 - Feb 18 by onehunglow |
Surely to God ,we have to move on.
I was told,on request,the action was nowt to do with the club.Odd conideing it was all about the club and its sale. With that reasoning,no wonder there is so much obfuscation .
It was all about justice for those who wouldn't have wanted the sale. What a bluddy mess.
To be told by Barrister there is a very good case would for me been enough to run for the hills. Jonalot aside,the least trustworthy of any profession by a country mile.Losing the case was possible,not probably granted,but Court rooms are arcane places where the rules are a mystery to us "ordinary" folk.
This action would have been a disaster for the club IMO as it would have been big football news that would have scred off prospective buyers. Just who would buy a club where even the owners and trust do not trust each other and tab each other in the back Sicilian style.
I'm on my own here,not that that bothers me but our club 's future is all about to whom it is sold.
Nobody out there,not even Lisa ,knows exactly what to do or to believe such subtefuge is rampant at the club.
I always feel for Russy. |
So basically roll over like a puppy . I'm surprised | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 15:41 - Feb 18 with 1435 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 15:12 - Feb 18 by Boundy |
So basically roll over like a puppy . I'm surprised |
If you are a professional boxer and you go into the ring with the odd 70:30 in your favour you stride in confident and go to battle and prepared to take a beating.
If you are a professional gambler with the odds in your favour 70:30 you put on a reasonable bet but do not go 'all in'.
If you are a professional investor you put in 10% of you holding.
If you are a chairman of a "not for Profit" Trust and the consequences of losing a high, you do not go anywhere near it. 30% of financial ruin. Not a chance.
The Chairman of the trust has to look after the interests of the members and the club. He is not a young man in Vegas sniffing cocaine. Failing that Blackpool.
If the militant member of the Trust want to gamble there are cheap flight to Vegas going at the present. Football ownership is not for you. The gamblers have lost the battle and should slink away licking their wounds. [Post edited 18 Feb 2022 15:44]
|  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:06 - Feb 18 with 1400 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 15:41 - Feb 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If you are a professional boxer and you go into the ring with the odd 70:30 in your favour you stride in confident and go to battle and prepared to take a beating.
If you are a professional gambler with the odds in your favour 70:30 you put on a reasonable bet but do not go 'all in'.
If you are a professional investor you put in 10% of you holding.
If you are a chairman of a "not for Profit" Trust and the consequences of losing a high, you do not go anywhere near it. 30% of financial ruin. Not a chance.
The Chairman of the trust has to look after the interests of the members and the club. He is not a young man in Vegas sniffing cocaine. Failing that Blackpool.
If the militant member of the Trust want to gamble there are cheap flight to Vegas going at the present. Football ownership is not for you. The gamblers have lost the battle and should slink away licking their wounds. [Post edited 18 Feb 2022 15:44]
|
Were the consequences of losing high? The trust's prospects to gain funds previously with the amount in the bank were low, they still are and now they're going to hey diluted to a point where any future prospects of gaining considerable funds are even lower.
This was a golden opportunity that's been wasted and every single member is rightfully disgusted by what this board has done. Can't see any 'slinking' away until this board are removed from the positions. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:34 - Feb 18 with 1359 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:06 - Feb 18 by Chief |
Were the consequences of losing high? The trust's prospects to gain funds previously with the amount in the bank were low, they still are and now they're going to hey diluted to a point where any future prospects of gaining considerable funds are even lower.
This was a golden opportunity that's been wasted and every single member is rightfully disgusted by what this board has done. Can't see any 'slinking' away until this board are removed from the positions. |
The members are gamblers. They wanted their day in court but were not prepared to put any more than £5 p.a. into the fighting fund. I would respect them if they did.
It seems no funder would go with the 'no win no fee' type deal either. Hence the long negotiations lasting years discussing a 'hybrid' perhaps. I suspect the Trust had to put in a big wedge and risk their shares as well.
With big loses likely for a court loss I am not surprised the Trust chairman would press the button with a quoted 30% chance of ruination. Trust organisations are not suited to high level big money 'punts'. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:54 - Feb 18 with 1346 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:34 - Feb 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The members are gamblers. They wanted their day in court but were not prepared to put any more than £5 p.a. into the fighting fund. I would respect them if they did.
It seems no funder would go with the 'no win no fee' type deal either. Hence the long negotiations lasting years discussing a 'hybrid' perhaps. I suspect the Trust had to put in a big wedge and risk their shares as well.
With big loses likely for a court loss I am not surprised the Trust chairman would press the button with a quoted 30% chance of ruination. Trust organisations are not suited to high level big money 'punts'. |
If the buffoons on the board had requested some additional funding maybe members would have reciprocated. Instead they signed this pathetic deal with no consultation. The whole membership would have respected them to go in with what they had. The Americans are on.film admitting they were told to exclude the trust, they've been quoted as saying they didn't know there was a shareholders agreement and Jenkins's efforts to invalidate the agreement and doctor meeting minutes are well publicised, as is P Sumbler informing the selling shareholders on behalf of the trust that they would consider selling as soon as they became aware of the sale.
Literally what defence would the sellouts and Americans have against that? No number of highly paid lawyers could change those indisputable events.
A case endorsed by a QC against the back drop is no punt.
Or.....
Leave the Americans out of it and go after the sellouts alone! That wouldn't have been as expensive. Fact that they've coughed up the 500k says a lot. [Post edited 18 Feb 2022 16:58]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:13 - Feb 18 with 1283 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:54 - Feb 18 by Chief |
If the buffoons on the board had requested some additional funding maybe members would have reciprocated. Instead they signed this pathetic deal with no consultation. The whole membership would have respected them to go in with what they had. The Americans are on.film admitting they were told to exclude the trust, they've been quoted as saying they didn't know there was a shareholders agreement and Jenkins's efforts to invalidate the agreement and doctor meeting minutes are well publicised, as is P Sumbler informing the selling shareholders on behalf of the trust that they would consider selling as soon as they became aware of the sale.
Literally what defence would the sellouts and Americans have against that? No number of highly paid lawyers could change those indisputable events.
A case endorsed by a QC against the back drop is no punt.
Or.....
Leave the Americans out of it and go after the sellouts alone! That wouldn't have been as expensive. Fact that they've coughed up the 500k says a lot. [Post edited 18 Feb 2022 16:58]
|
Selling is not easy an any salesmen will tell you. That is why they are well paid.
The Trust had indicated emphatically their shares were not up for sale in 2015. Later in 2015 the sellers found new buyers. There was no indication any thing had changed. Their statement did not alter their stance.
"informing the selling shareholders on behalf of the trust that they would consider selling as soon as they became aware of the sale" changed nothing as far as I could see. The same people were making the decisions. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:19 - Feb 18 with 1277 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:13 - Feb 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Selling is not easy an any salesmen will tell you. That is why they are well paid.
The Trust had indicated emphatically their shares were not up for sale in 2015. Later in 2015 the sellers found new buyers. There was no indication any thing had changed. Their statement did not alter their stance.
"informing the selling shareholders on behalf of the trust that they would consider selling as soon as they became aware of the sale" changed nothing as far as I could see. The same people were making the decisions. |
You're right it didn't change anything - The Americans never wanted to buy the trust's shares and this didn't change after the trust told them they were willing to sell.
There's absolutely no way that the excuse of assuming the trust didn't want to sell (after something that had been said years prior under differing circumstances) so they didn't ask them & reverted to full secrecy mode to avoid distributing them is laughable and stood zero chance of holding up in court. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:20 - Feb 18 with 1275 views | Whiterockin |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:13 - Feb 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Selling is not easy an any salesmen will tell you. That is why they are well paid.
The Trust had indicated emphatically their shares were not up for sale in 2015. Later in 2015 the sellers found new buyers. There was no indication any thing had changed. Their statement did not alter their stance.
"informing the selling shareholders on behalf of the trust that they would consider selling as soon as they became aware of the sale" changed nothing as far as I could see. The same people were making the decisions. |
2014
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2014/10/29/trust-statement-on-press-reports/
Please read the last paragraph. |  | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:43 - Feb 18 with 1231 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Translation.
"We do not want to sell but if you insist on making an offer we will put it to the members with our recommendation not to sell. For your kind information this process could take up to 12 months"
Not a very good sales pitch in my opinion. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:48 - Feb 18 with 1213 views | Whiterockin |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:43 - Feb 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Translation.
"We do not want to sell but if you insist on making an offer we will put it to the members with our recommendation not to sell. For your kind information this process could take up to 12 months"
Not a very good sales pitch in my opinion. |
Don't try and twist the facts to suit your agenda. It was not a sales pitch but left themselves open to an offer. So it was not a complete no we will not sell, as you are making out, or they would not have added we would consult the members. | | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:53 - Feb 18 with 1197 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:06 - Feb 18 by Chief |
Were the consequences of losing high? The trust's prospects to gain funds previously with the amount in the bank were low, they still are and now they're going to hey diluted to a point where any future prospects of gaining considerable funds are even lower.
This was a golden opportunity that's been wasted and every single member is rightfully disgusted by what this board has done. Can't see any 'slinking' away until this board are removed from the positions. |
If it was such a sure win situation why did you not offer to guarantee any trust losses with your own money. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:55 - Feb 18 with 1191 views | Witneyjack |
| Trust meeting tonight on 12:35 - Feb 18 by Badlands |
I the real world it was the best they could hope for.
A competent legal team would have made mincemeat of their case. In the meantime they could have been in the position of having to offload shares at a knock down price just to pay the bills.
Perhaps it can now make a bit of an effort to support the Swans rather than itself and pander to the moaners.
Check out Bristol, £billionaire owner moaning about wages caps because of their runaway finances and lowly league position. |
I would have rathered the current Board had grown a pair and taken this to court and lost heavily, than sell out the membership by accepting a deal imposed on them that they don't even understand. [Post edited 18 Feb 2022 18:56]
|  | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:03 - Feb 18 with 1174 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:53 - Feb 18 by felixstowe_jack |
If it was such a sure win situation why did you not offer to guarantee any trust losses with your own money. |
Wasn't given the opportunity mate. If you weren't aware the Trust board signed this agreement without consulting the members first. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:08 - Feb 18 with 1167 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:48 - Feb 18 by Whiterockin |
Don't try and twist the facts to suit your agenda. It was not a sales pitch but left themselves open to an offer. So it was not a complete no we will not sell, as you are making out, or they would not have added we would consult the members. |
Yea other than literally saying "We're desperate to sell, please please please bid, will talk to anyone" (which isn't a good look for a Supporters trust) could be done?
They've literally said they'd consider offers. Zero excuse for the plotters to exclude them. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:13 - Feb 18 with 1162 views | Boundy |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:43 - Feb 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Translation.
"We do not want to sell but if you insist on making an offer we will put it to the members with our recommendation not to sell. For your kind information this process could take up to 12 months"
Not a very good sales pitch in my opinion. |
,Wrong again "The Trust had indicated emphatically their shares were not up for sale in 2015" your words , you surmise with great regularity hoping that some of which you post is true or won't be questioned .It will be | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 20:48 - Feb 18 with 1070 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 19:13 - Feb 18 by Boundy |
,Wrong again "The Trust had indicated emphatically their shares were not up for sale in 2015" your words , you surmise with great regularity hoping that some of which you post is true or won't be questioned .It will be |
This was in the press. It seems perfectly clear to me what the Trust's position was.
Noted in 2014 repeated in 2015 and if it was not the Trust's position why was it not corrected immediately. It was a bad strategic mistake.
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-02-16/swansea-city-close-to-us-invest [Post edited 18 Feb 2022 20:52]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 20:55 - Feb 18 with 1055 views | Chief |
He shouldn't have said that.
Although it is completely irrelevant.
Can you with a straight face say that without that ill advised comment years prior that the trust would have been included from the start of sale negotiations?
Or that the Americans would have bid at the same level as the sellouts bids?
I doubt very much the sellouts/Americans are using this to excuse their conduct because it's pathetic. You can't just assume in business. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 22:18 - Feb 18 with 975 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 16:34 - Feb 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The members are gamblers. They wanted their day in court but were not prepared to put any more than £5 p.a. into the fighting fund. I would respect them if they did.
It seems no funder would go with the 'no win no fee' type deal either. Hence the long negotiations lasting years discussing a 'hybrid' perhaps. I suspect the Trust had to put in a big wedge and risk their shares as well.
With big loses likely for a court loss I am not surprised the Trust chairman would press the button with a quoted 30% chance of ruination. Trust organisations are not suited to high level big money 'punts'. |
Just some points of order here and with other aspects of this thread:
- the only things certain in life are death and taxes. So a circa 70-30 outcome is quite high
- I've seen comments here that "a competent QC would wipe the floor with the Trust" if that was so why did the defendents look at having separate legal teams
- I can only speak for myself but I would have chipped in
Not that any of this matters anymore, but let's conduct this in reality |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 22:21 - Feb 18 with 972 views | Chief |
| Trust meeting tonight on 22:18 - Feb 18 by waynekerr55 |
Just some points of order here and with other aspects of this thread:
- the only things certain in life are death and taxes. So a circa 70-30 outcome is quite high
- I've seen comments here that "a competent QC would wipe the floor with the Trust" if that was so why did the defendents look at having separate legal teams
- I can only speak for myself but I would have chipped in
Not that any of this matters anymore, but let's conduct this in reality |
Totally agree. There's zero reason for the likes of Resloven to lie or play their twp act anymore. They've got what they wanted. | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 22:42 - Feb 18 with 962 views | BillyChong |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:13 - Feb 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Selling is not easy an any salesmen will tell you. That is why they are well paid.
The Trust had indicated emphatically their shares were not up for sale in 2015. Later in 2015 the sellers found new buyers. There was no indication any thing had changed. Their statement did not alter their stance.
"informing the selling shareholders on behalf of the trust that they would consider selling as soon as they became aware of the sale" changed nothing as far as I could see. The same people were making the decisions. |
Shareholders agreement | | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:54 - Feb 18 with 923 views | max936 |
| Trust meeting tonight on 18:48 - Feb 18 by Whiterockin |
Don't try and twist the facts to suit your agenda. It was not a sales pitch but left themselves open to an offer. So it was not a complete no we will not sell, as you are making out, or they would not have added we would consult the members. |
The biggest sales pitch was by the sell outs in the now farcical Jack to a King film, Which in all fairness was a master stroke which virtually all of us Fans fell naively for.
That was a fine piece of work by whoever thought of it, but when the euphoria of it all settled down and fans sat back and realised that the names of the real influential people that were instrumental in bringing the change to the club were missing from the credits of where the club was at the time of that film, the taste started to sour. Why weren't they not mentioned, because those names didn't fit the narrative that was to promote the sell outs. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 08:21 - Feb 19 with 834 views | Flynnidine_Zidownes |
| Trust meeting tonight on 23:54 - Feb 18 by max936 |
The biggest sales pitch was by the sell outs in the now farcical Jack to a King film, Which in all fairness was a master stroke which virtually all of us Fans fell naively for.
That was a fine piece of work by whoever thought of it, but when the euphoria of it all settled down and fans sat back and realised that the names of the real influential people that were instrumental in bringing the change to the club were missing from the credits of where the club was at the time of that film, the taste started to sour. Why weren't they not mentioned, because those names didn't fit the narrative that was to promote the sell outs. |
Tony Petty turning up at the premiere as a vip guest should have been a bit of an alarm bell. | | | |
| Trust meeting tonight on 09:51 - Feb 19 with 779 views | waynekerr55 |
And special mention for the shareholders agreement that was responsible for the trust not getting 25%, didn't exist, wasn't valid because BVS hadn't signed it and the Gonzo's solicitors asked the Trust to waive.
We see you... | |
| |
| Trust meeting tonight on 09:54 - Feb 19 with 776 views | QJumpingJack |
| Trust meeting tonight on 08:21 - Feb 19 by Flynnidine_Zidownes |
Tony Petty turning up at the premiere as a vip guest should have been a bit of an alarm bell. |
In 2001 the fan base was united vs Tony Petty. Maybe the strongest it has ever been.
Today the fan base is very much split. Certain individuals will be smiling at the "Divide and Conquer" approach. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
