Time for us to complain to BBC 12:13 - Jan 2 with 4369 views | harryhpalmer | I see the BBC Wales Sport have again produced an unbalanced article - propaganda piece - from the ex-shareholder. Today they have given Rob Davies's nonsense airtime, with no rebuttal or comment from either the Trust or Phil/Hamer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42536039 So its time for us to hit back and complain about this bias and accuse them of not following their PSB remit. Here's a link to their online form. https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?lang=en&reset=&uid=648471691 If we get enough numbers in, then maybe someone on high will have to take notice. | |
| | |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 12:37 - Jan 2 with 4244 views | swanseajack4eva | Disappointing but predictable. Thanks for link to make a complaint. As I said on here yesterday to ECB ... "I realise that, but the Trust statement was made before the Rob Davies article was released ... so in the eyes of people reading it (incl. mainstream media) the Davies article supersedes and discredits the Trust statement. In a social media world you have to keep pumping out key messages simply and consistently ... and refute categorically errors that are put out by others. Few people can be bothered to search and piece together the full story. A simple statement from Phil and Nigel to mainstream media and a response under the comments section on the website would suffice. It would also help demonstrate the untrustworthiness of the sell-outs in upcoming legal action, if the Trust board decides to take this step." I went to the Dai Sport website and at least added links to the Trust and SCSA statements. I realise the Trust board is all volunteer time. | | | |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 16:51 - Jan 2 with 3885 views | waynekerr55 | Complaint filed. ðŸ | |
| |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 17:02 - Jan 2 with 3830 views | trampie | The Beeb hey. | |
| |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 18:24 - Jan 2 with 3647 views | Swanseaman | I'm not sure if I should write this into the BBC complains or not? Is it too much information? any thoughts??? [[[The article 'Huw Jenkins: Former shareholder Rob Davies backs Swansea chairman' is not factual, & is misleading. Swansea city supporters trust are being discredited, the truth is it's the shareholders who excluded the Trust from sale negotiations which caused the rift. By the time the Trust were informed of the sale, it was so far advanced there was little they could do about it. If the trust were aware of the sale to the Americans from the start, the sale may not have gone ahead. The Trust was there to make sure the Club would never again be sold to the wrong people. Checks on the Americans would have been made and seeing other failed sports ventures and no intentions of any investments, they may have advised the other shareholders not to sell. Years ago when the Trust was formed, the main purpose was to gain shares, be on the board, and to make sure no dodgy dealings were ever done. They were a safeguard to the future of Swansea, a protector of the club so that they could never again get in a similar mess as the Tony petty days. Apart from being left out of the initial sale discussions, measures were put in place to reduce the trusts powers, and deals were made behind their backs. Shareholders, knowingly went against the Trusts ethos, because it was the ONLY way to sell their shares and make their money. They excluded the Trust, bypassed the protection processes, and are now trying to discredit the trust. Swansea City supporters were told the sale to the Americans would take us to the next level. This was not the case and was never going to be. Why would the shareholders possibly want to sell to anyone who had absolutely no intentions of investing a penny into the club. The only people who would want that were the shareholders to gain profits for themselves. All of these media interviews and articles are being used to discredit the Trust, a propaganda campaign you should look into. Facts are being distorted due to the potential of a court case.]]] | |
| |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 18:58 - Jan 2 with 3534 views | BrynCartwright |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 18:24 - Jan 2 by Swanseaman | I'm not sure if I should write this into the BBC complains or not? Is it too much information? any thoughts??? [[[The article 'Huw Jenkins: Former shareholder Rob Davies backs Swansea chairman' is not factual, & is misleading. Swansea city supporters trust are being discredited, the truth is it's the shareholders who excluded the Trust from sale negotiations which caused the rift. By the time the Trust were informed of the sale, it was so far advanced there was little they could do about it. If the trust were aware of the sale to the Americans from the start, the sale may not have gone ahead. The Trust was there to make sure the Club would never again be sold to the wrong people. Checks on the Americans would have been made and seeing other failed sports ventures and no intentions of any investments, they may have advised the other shareholders not to sell. Years ago when the Trust was formed, the main purpose was to gain shares, be on the board, and to make sure no dodgy dealings were ever done. They were a safeguard to the future of Swansea, a protector of the club so that they could never again get in a similar mess as the Tony petty days. Apart from being left out of the initial sale discussions, measures were put in place to reduce the trusts powers, and deals were made behind their backs. Shareholders, knowingly went against the Trusts ethos, because it was the ONLY way to sell their shares and make their money. They excluded the Trust, bypassed the protection processes, and are now trying to discredit the trust. Swansea City supporters were told the sale to the Americans would take us to the next level. This was not the case and was never going to be. Why would the shareholders possibly want to sell to anyone who had absolutely no intentions of investing a penny into the club. The only people who would want that were the shareholders to gain profits for themselves. All of these media interviews and articles are being used to discredit the Trust, a propaganda campaign you should look into. Facts are being distorted due to the potential of a court case.]]] |
I would add some of the facts outlined in the excellent My Final Heaven thread about our not so illustrious owners.. Kaplan and Levien now own 3 sports teams that are all in last place by MyFinalHeaven 1 Jan 2018 1:191. DC United, which Levien owns and is the managing director of. They recently finished tied for last place in the 22 team MLS and scored the fewest number of goals. Last place, least amount of goals--talk about a parallel to us.
2. Memphis Grizzlies, which Kaplan owns and is the Vice Chairman of. Currently dead last in the Western Conference of the NBA.
3. And of course, us. Dead last in the EPL and like DC United, also dead last when it comes to goals scored.
This is a new low in sports ownership history. Never before has an individual or a group of individuals who owned 2 or more clubs ever had them all in last place like this. And these blokes own 3. Congrats on the accomplishment you stupid cvnts. It takes a special kind of incompetence and uselessness to achieve such a task, and somehow you two managed it.
What sticks out for me most is with the other football team they own besides ours, DC United, which has gone down a very similar path to SCFC since Levien took them over back in 2012. It's eerie almost in the similarities. In his first full season as owner in 2013 DC United finished dead last, and in every year of his ownership they've been in the bottom 4 of the league in terms of wage bills. And just like us, Levien has not put a cent into the club. Looking at DC United fans talk about their ownership on social media and on their message board, it's strikingly reminiscent of ours, with their supporters expressing utter hopelessness and frustration about how club brass don't give two fvcks about the club, how they only care about making money, and how even the bare minimum isn't being put in. Have a look at DC United's transfer spending sheet year by year, it's one of the most depressing things I have ever seen. In 6 years of ownership Levien has spent just £4.6m on players, and they had THREE SEASONS WHERE THEY DIDN'T EVEN SPEND A SINGLE DOLLAR ON PLAYERS:
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/d-c-united/alletransfers/verein/2440
Levien has ran to the press and postured about how desperate he is to spend and win though. Check out what he said back in April 2013. The team would end up spending £0 on players that season:
“We are willing to spend what it takes to be competitive at the upper echelons of the league,” he said. “The revenue streams are still not there, but while we are mindful of that, we want to win. And we owe it to our fans and our own competitive nature to assemble a roster that can compete with anyone in the league.”
From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soccer-insider/wp/2013/04/29/few-minutes-with-uniteds-jason-levien/?utm_term=.e10c77d042a0
Sound familiar? That's because it is. Remember what Levien said in his first conference after the takeover about how willing he was to spend, bragging endlessly about his "financial resources," how he wanted to "make a splash," and how we were no longer going to be a selling club or a club that players used as a stepping stone?:
"We will be relentless in our determination to continually improve this club - and we have the financial resources to do so. We will be competitive and we will outwork our opponents on the pitch and in the boardroom."
"We want to build a football club that is competitive...perhaps Swansea has been seen as a stepping-stone club for some players in the past, a chance to show what they can do in the Premier League before moving quickly on. Those days are over."
“I think Huw has a tremendous football mind and he’s proven that over more than a decade. We want to make sure Huw and the club have the resources to succeed. We want to make a splash."
But wait, it gets even worse. Let's not forget Levien also said the following:
"Steve and I have both said our first, second and third priority is what's going to help us on the pitch short and long-term."
"Our message to fans is we are very focused on winning and continued success."
"The biggest thing of all is that when we go out on that pitch we're competitive."
"It's something that I love, something that drives me to be involved in sports - you're in the game to win the game and that's why we're here."
We recognise this club means so much to so many people and we take the responsibility as owners very seriously. While we plan on being long-term owners we know the team belongs to the community. In essence, we see ourselves as guardians of the club but it belongs to the fans of Swansea City. One thing we want to be clear about is our priorities as owners. Priority number one, two and three is the performance of the team on the pitch. We will field a competitive team that will battle every week against the greatest teams and players in the world. We know there is always a sense of fear and trepidation when new owners arrive on the scene but we will do everything in our power to win your trust and ensure there is a long and bright future for Swansea City.
Given all this, and with Kaplan and Levien's utterly horrendous track record when it comes to sports ownership, it is absolutely appalling why Jenkins would sell to these two, especially when he's babbled so much over the years about how he wants to ensure Swansea City is in the right hands and continues to move forward when he eventually leaves. It's especially perplexing when you take into account that he had turned down John Jay Moores' attempt to purchase us, someone who actually has a somewhat successful history of owning a team with the San Diego Padres, which he owned from 1994 to 2008. How he could turn down Moores, or anyone really, for these two con men is absolutely incredible. My only guess is that Moores' offer did not include a guarantee he would stay on as chairman and remain in power like K&L's offer, and that Moores was looking to replace him with a proper DoF should he have taken over. Such a shame we sold out to these assholes. Why could we not have found someone who actually gives a shite about the club. | |
| |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 19:02 - Jan 2 with 3516 views | swanseajack4eva | I would go for it SwanseaMan. The text allowed is quite generous but not unlimited. You make good points well and to get attention the volume of complaints matters as much as the content, provided the content is generally on the mark. | | | |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 19:12 - Jan 2 with 3474 views | harryhpalmer | you need to stick to the facts of where you see bias in the reporting (or not) of the facts: the points made Jenkins and Davies articles show no evidence, and are not challenged. Info that IS in the public domain not used for the challenges. Nor, before the articles are published, were those accused afforded to rebut the points made by the sellers. the Trust article does not afford them a proper recourse of rebuttal on each point, as afforded to their accusers. And since the Trust or Phil's statements were made, again there is no evidence that the BBC have gone back to Jenkins or Davies and asked to comment. | |
| |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 19:17 - Jan 2 with 3457 views | Swanseaman |
Time for us to complain to BBC on 19:12 - Jan 2 by harryhpalmer | you need to stick to the facts of where you see bias in the reporting (or not) of the facts: the points made Jenkins and Davies articles show no evidence, and are not challenged. Info that IS in the public domain not used for the challenges. Nor, before the articles are published, were those accused afforded to rebut the points made by the sellers. the Trust article does not afford them a proper recourse of rebuttal on each point, as afforded to their accusers. And since the Trust or Phil's statements were made, again there is no evidence that the BBC have gone back to Jenkins or Davies and asked to comment. |
These are the facts I've included: FACT: the shareholders who excluded the Trust from sale negotiations which caused the rift. FACT: By the time the Trust were informed of the sale, it was so far advanced there was little they could do about it. FACT: If the trust were aware of the sale to the Americans from the start, the sale may not have gone ahead. FACT: Apart from being left out of the initial sale discussions, measures were put in place to reduce the trusts powers, and deals were made behind their backs. FACT: Shareholders, knowingly went against the Trusts ethos, because it was the ONLY way to sell their shares and make their money. They excluded the Trust, bypassed the protection processes, and are now trying to discredit the trust. FACT: Swansea City supporters were told the sale to the Americans would take us to the next level. This was not the case and was never going to be. FACT: Why would the shareholders possibly want to sell to anyone who had absolutely no intentions of investing a penny into the club. The only people who would want that were the shareholders to gain profits for themselves. | |
| |
| |