| Vote of no confidence thread. 18:21 - Dec 15 with 27178 views | E20Jack |
Not a member but will happily join again if this was to get off the ground.
Any members have any ideas how to do this?
Looks like the only way of stopping this deal now. I have asked several times what are the benefits of this deal, it cannot be continuing to have a voice as conceding drag rights will probably mean the Trust survives as an organisation for a shorter period than if it was to go legal. They are not long term owners.
...those who recommended the deal still have not answered.
Swans Trust,
12 Dynevor Avenue,
Neath,
SA10 7AG
I, the undersigned member, believe the current committee no longer represents the wishes of this organisation's members. I would like to register a vote of no confidence and ask you to call and extraordinary meeting of all Trust members so that we can be heard. We would like to table a motion that the following committee members should stand down and call an election at the earliest opportunity.
Alan Lewis
Stuart McDonald
Viv Brooks
Ron Knuszka
Cath Dyer
Viv Williams
Sian Davies
Yours,
................................
** any Trust members for the deal I have missed out feel free to add or any I have included that are against it then again feel free to omit. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 20:43]
|  |
| |  |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:03 - Dec 16 with 1716 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 17:59 - Dec 16 by Dewi1jack |
Spot on.
Any fugger can "write up a template" Not much point when to send it will be a waste of postage if you aren't a member.
No one takes any notice of non shareholders in an AGM/EGM/ Vote of No confidence
I didn't bother with a template. Just sent a request for an EGM.
See E20, at least I'm doing something. And able to do it and attempt to try and make a difference.
Why?
Because I'm a member you bewt.
If the AGM is going to be quicker, then that'll do.
Oh E20 you won't be able to help us vote off any member.
Or try and get the share sale stopped in a show of hands.
Or have maybe the single vote we need to stop these self serving b'stards (I don't include those who stayed to try and fight/ new co-optees) from fuggin up OUR club.
Why?
Because in plain and simple terms, you have to be a member.
And if you don't understand that, then you make 2 short planks look like a fukin supercomputer. |
You are another that has not read what was said then. Amazing how meany people frothing at the mouth ready to jump in without understanding what has been said.
Read it again. You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing.
As an aside... If anyone could have drafted a letter, then why on earth has nobody done it then? All I have heard for weeks is members saying we should do x,y,z... Isn't that your job as members? You know, to do stuff?
Until you start doing these things you will have to accept the help of non members and lump it unfortunately squire. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:09 - Dec 16 with 1692 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:01 - Dec 16 by chad |
I will consider myself told
But actually Lisa if you read what I said, I agreed with ECB re that action, I said we should prioritise both and he agreed.
But is is important not to think of the other one as a red herring as we may miss the window if we wait on that for anything concrete from this
The initial step is not a vote but a request for a vote - I believe
I think the above a fair and balanced opinion
I appreciate anything done to progress this. I also tried to do my bit at the meeting (as I have done at others). Let's say there could have been little doubt of my concerns and the reasons for them; and also outlining the opinions of yourself, Matt and Phil at the meeting loud and clear, was I think effective. |
Sorry Chad, I wasn't trying to tell you anything, I was trying to emphasise how important it may be. |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:10 - Dec 16 with 1689 views | jasfan |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:01 - Dec 16 by chad |
I will consider myself told
But actually Lisa if you read what I said, I agreed with ECB re that action, I said we should prioritise both and he agreed.
But is is important not to think of the other one as a red herring as we may miss the window if we wait on that for anything concrete from this
The initial step is not a vote but a request for a vote - I believe
I think the above a fair and balanced opinion
I appreciate anything done to progress this. I also tried to do my bit at the meeting (as I have done at others). Let's say there could have been little doubt of my concerns and the reasons for them; and also outlining the opinions of yourself, Matt and Phil at the meeting loud and clear, was I think effective. |
Yes I think your contributions were effective and it was a pity there weren't even more there to argue and support a re-vote.
Having said that, I got the impression that the Trust Board do not intend to alter their course for the reasons they gave, and I doubt a few extra voices would have altered that.
[Post edited 16 Dec 2017 18:11]
| | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:14 - Dec 16 with 1671 views | chad |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:09 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
Sorry Chad, I wasn't trying to tell you anything, I was trying to emphasise how important it may be. |
Thanks Lisa, I understand and passion is a great thing |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:23 - Dec 16 with 1656 views | chad |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:10 - Dec 16 by jasfan |
Yes I think your contributions were effective and it was a pity there weren't even more there to argue and support a re-vote.
Having said that, I got the impression that the Trust Board do not intend to alter their course for the reasons they gave, and I doubt a few extra voices would have altered that.
[Post edited 16 Dec 2017 18:11]
|
Thanks, I agree about the determination of the Board, but also agree that it would have been good to have more voices there if we could, it might have shaken them a bit.
It would be great if we could video conference the meetings | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:27 - Dec 16 with 1641 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:23 - Dec 16 by chad |
Thanks, I agree about the determination of the Board, but also agree that it would have been good to have more voices there if we could, it might have shaken them a bit.
It would be great if we could video conference the meetings |
Careful what you wish for.  |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:32 - Dec 16 with 1627 views | Dewi1jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:03 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
You are another that has not read what was said then. Amazing how meany people frothing at the mouth ready to jump in without understanding what has been said.
Read it again. You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing.
As an aside... If anyone could have drafted a letter, then why on earth has nobody done it then? All I have heard for weeks is members saying we should do x,y,z... Isn't that your job as members? You know, to do stuff?
Until you start doing these things you will have to accept the help of non members and lump it unfortunately squire. |
Mine was put on here and sent weeks ago. As I said wording doesn't matter.
Just the request for an EGM. But as an AGM is quicker...
You want to try reading what's said.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time typing up a letter
Why haven't you rejoined as your vote may be the one we need?
Then I'll listen to you, as you may be able to influence any decision the Trust make.
Until then, you're just white noise that I don't have to lump. Squire |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:44 - Dec 16 with 1604 views | E20Jack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:32 - Dec 16 by Dewi1jack |
Mine was put on here and sent weeks ago. As I said wording doesn't matter.
Just the request for an EGM. But as an AGM is quicker...
You want to try reading what's said.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time typing up a letter
Why haven't you rejoined as your vote may be the one we need?
Then I'll listen to you, as you may be able to influence any decision the Trust make.
Until then, you're just white noise that I don't have to lump. Squire |
I didn't see it. Sending a solitary one is pointless. You need to garner support and have a coordinated effort. They rejected your letter as they have every right to. Hence why I typed what I did, so no wasted time there.
I have not rejoined the Trust for many reasons I have already highlighted. I don't believe there will be a radical change of heart and a re-vote, if there is to be one in my opinion it will be as a result of a coordinated approach such as the one on offer here. If we then gauge the interest we can see whether it is worth me joining again, as I am not joining an impotent Trust. Simple as that really.
Not noise at all. If all the members print this and sign it and send to me it will invoke change - it is only white noise if you refuse to act upon it, and that will be white noise to to the response not the instigator. Squire. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 19:27 - Dec 16 with 1561 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 18:44 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
I didn't see it. Sending a solitary one is pointless. You need to garner support and have a coordinated effort. They rejected your letter as they have every right to. Hence why I typed what I did, so no wasted time there.
I have not rejoined the Trust for many reasons I have already highlighted. I don't believe there will be a radical change of heart and a re-vote, if there is to be one in my opinion it will be as a result of a coordinated approach such as the one on offer here. If we then gauge the interest we can see whether it is worth me joining again, as I am not joining an impotent Trust. Simple as that really.
Not noise at all. If all the members print this and sign it and send to me it will invoke change - it is only white noise if you refuse to act upon it, and that will be white noise to to the response not the instigator. Squire. |
The letters only work for an EGM, not the AGM which is the best bet.
For that you not only need to gether proxies, but also have the ability to vote them at the meeting which is why those rules i mentioned earlier are so important.
So is the wording of the proxies, specifically I am not sure whether they can authorise the holder to vote on any resolution that comes up or whether they must be specific to the resolution.
Could really do with a proper lawyer looking at that point. Doens't somebody know the former legal director in court trying to sue the club? He could be very useful. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 19:33 - Dec 16 with 1544 views | Shaky |
BTW you would also need proxies for the EGM, unless you are expecting all the signatories to turn up. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 19:42 - Dec 16 with 1518 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:40 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
They probably don't have to accept a motion from the floor unless they want to, choosing to accept one one year doesn't mean they have to do the same another year.
As I said, someone would need to check. |
Dwight, are you on the case? | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 19:49 - Dec 16 with 1503 views | MoscowJack |
Lisa, Shaky, ECB, Ux etc...
If I join the Trust today but I'm not in the country for the vote, do you know if I would I be able to vote? Would I have to attend?
Considering the AGM is mid-late January and I'm "away" from mid-Dec until mid-Jan, it's unlikely that I'll be able to return to UK to cast a vote anyway.
Ps would it be possible to have 250 meaningful words from those hoping to get re-elected? The last thing we want is to see good people removed for the sake of proving a point. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 19:55 - Dec 16 with 1481 views | Wingstandwood |
Vote of confidence? Not having a go at the idea, the total opposite in fact i.e. why haven't certain trust impostors, trust Trojan horses and trust infiltrators resigned after the goalpost moving?
You see there is a vibe and growing perception going around now that Jenkins, Yanks, sell-outs have got em placed firmly in their ( i.e. Jenkins and co's) fithy lucre stuffed pockets. If these utterly despicable and shameless trust officials do not resign they'll be forever seen in the same light as Dineen i.e. in it not for love of the club, or loyalty towards trust membership and supporters but in it for themselves.
The new intake should stay and all pro-Jenkins/Yank scum should resign with immediate effect otherwise they will forever go down in SCFC supporter history and forklore as being a bunch just as bad as the sell-outs themselves. |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 19:57 - Dec 16 with 1473 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 19:49 - Dec 16 by MoscowJack |
Lisa, Shaky, ECB, Ux etc...
If I join the Trust today but I'm not in the country for the vote, do you know if I would I be able to vote? Would I have to attend?
Considering the AGM is mid-late January and I'm "away" from mid-Dec until mid-Jan, it's unlikely that I'll be able to return to UK to cast a vote anyway.
Ps would it be possible to have 250 meaningful words from those hoping to get re-elected? The last thing we want is to see good people removed for the sake of proving a point. |
You can vote by proxy, if somebody votes it on your behalf.
That could be somebody you find yourself, or somebody seeking to coordinate overall proceedings at the AGM . . . | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:08 - Dec 16 with 1451 views | MoscowJack |
Regarding whether the deal has actually changed or not, I basically see this as a very simple sample of what's happened.
Trust: OK, let's see if we can do a deal on reasonable terms but if they try to screw us, we walk away without hesitation or question.
SCFC Board: Here's a deal - it's the same as the previous Board got! Take it or leave it.
Trust: Great, it's a reasonable deal and they haven't tried to screw us....let's present it to the members and advise on it being passed.
SCFC Board: Oh, and here's one or two other changes too.....just a few.....
Trust: Oh sh!t, here they go. We knew this would happen. I'm outta here (exit Phil and Matt).
SCFC Board: Ok, ok.....calm down....we'll, erm....keep the original deal so you can tell your believed dog's tails that nothing's changed and allow the deal to go through asap (with the drag rights added, of course, to allow us to sell without any worries of future court action).
That's how I see it and I also really worry why some on the Trust Board are pushing so hard for this. Maybe one (!) or two are too close to those advising the Americans? That's just a guess but something stinks....really badly.
I also don't think battering Ux for being honest is going to help anyone. At least he's had the balls to come on here and say what he thinks, whether it's right or wrong. He might have been flippant towards some, but from what I've seen he's generally treated people the way he's been treated by them himself. I know he's an easy target, but isn't he one of the people who we actually NEED on the Trust Board to help us shape the future of it? | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:10 - Dec 16 with 1439 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 19:57 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
You can vote by proxy, if somebody votes it on your behalf.
That could be somebody you find yourself, or somebody seeking to coordinate overall proceedings at the AGM . . . |
. . .and just looking at the rules again, it seems highly likely that the proxy can be a catch all affair authorising the holder to vote on any matter that arises.
Rule 50 d) says the only requirement is that it be lodged with the Trust 2 business days prior to the meeting. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:12 - Dec 16 with 1436 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:08 - Dec 16 by MoscowJack |
Regarding whether the deal has actually changed or not, I basically see this as a very simple sample of what's happened.
Trust: OK, let's see if we can do a deal on reasonable terms but if they try to screw us, we walk away without hesitation or question.
SCFC Board: Here's a deal - it's the same as the previous Board got! Take it or leave it.
Trust: Great, it's a reasonable deal and they haven't tried to screw us....let's present it to the members and advise on it being passed.
SCFC Board: Oh, and here's one or two other changes too.....just a few.....
Trust: Oh sh!t, here they go. We knew this would happen. I'm outta here (exit Phil and Matt).
SCFC Board: Ok, ok.....calm down....we'll, erm....keep the original deal so you can tell your believed dog's tails that nothing's changed and allow the deal to go through asap (with the drag rights added, of course, to allow us to sell without any worries of future court action).
That's how I see it and I also really worry why some on the Trust Board are pushing so hard for this. Maybe one (!) or two are too close to those advising the Americans? That's just a guess but something stinks....really badly.
I also don't think battering Ux for being honest is going to help anyone. At least he's had the balls to come on here and say what he thinks, whether it's right or wrong. He might have been flippant towards some, but from what I've seen he's generally treated people the way he's been treated by them himself. I know he's an easy target, but isn't he one of the people who we actually NEED on the Trust Board to help us shape the future of it? |
What he thinks is what is all thats wrong though? |  |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:17 - Dec 16 with 1424 views | NeathJack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:08 - Dec 16 by MoscowJack |
Regarding whether the deal has actually changed or not, I basically see this as a very simple sample of what's happened.
Trust: OK, let's see if we can do a deal on reasonable terms but if they try to screw us, we walk away without hesitation or question.
SCFC Board: Here's a deal - it's the same as the previous Board got! Take it or leave it.
Trust: Great, it's a reasonable deal and they haven't tried to screw us....let's present it to the members and advise on it being passed.
SCFC Board: Oh, and here's one or two other changes too.....just a few.....
Trust: Oh sh!t, here they go. We knew this would happen. I'm outta here (exit Phil and Matt).
SCFC Board: Ok, ok.....calm down....we'll, erm....keep the original deal so you can tell your believed dog's tails that nothing's changed and allow the deal to go through asap (with the drag rights added, of course, to allow us to sell without any worries of future court action).
That's how I see it and I also really worry why some on the Trust Board are pushing so hard for this. Maybe one (!) or two are too close to those advising the Americans? That's just a guess but something stinks....really badly.
I also don't think battering Ux for being honest is going to help anyone. At least he's had the balls to come on here and say what he thinks, whether it's right or wrong. He might have been flippant towards some, but from what I've seen he's generally treated people the way he's been treated by them himself. I know he's an easy target, but isn't he one of the people who we actually NEED on the Trust Board to help us shape the future of it? |
Out of interest, do the sell outs who still own some shares (Jenkins for one), have drag rights attached to their remaining shares or is this just being forced upon the Trust?
If it's just for the Trust then how are we being offered the same terms as the sell outs? |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:19 - Dec 16 with 1417 views | wobbly |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 15:40 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
They probably don't have to accept a motion from the floor unless they want to, choosing to accept one one year doesn't mean they have to do the same another year.
As I said, someone would need to check. |
Its an AGM. The notice of the meeting at the very least will include election or re-election of directors. Even if it isn't, rule 24, subsection b, sub section c (which is actually a typo, it should really be sub section iii, ) of the model rules means the election of directors is on the agenda for the AGM.
The legal precedent of Betts vs Mcnaughton means that if it's on the agenda, someone other than the named directors can be proposed from the floor at the AGM and, if they garner enough votes, could get onto the board instead. That's just one possible way to change the dynamic of the meeting if people were so interested. A late push for box office representation? ;)
AGMs are great if you want to be mischievous. Shaky is right. |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:19 - Dec 16 with 1415 views | MoscowJack |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:17 - Dec 16 by NeathJack |
Out of interest, do the sell outs who still own some shares (Jenkins for one), have drag rights attached to their remaining shares or is this just being forced upon the Trust?
If it's just for the Trust then how are we being offered the same terms as the sell outs? |
I would imagine they do, but someone on the Trust Board should definitely know that as they would hopefully have seen the term sheets. | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:22 - Dec 16 with 1407 views | Phil_S |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:17 - Dec 16 by NeathJack |
Out of interest, do the sell outs who still own some shares (Jenkins for one), have drag rights attached to their remaining shares or is this just being forced upon the Trust?
If it's just for the Trust then how are we being offered the same terms as the sell outs? |
I believe they are the same (I dont know but I believe they are)
However we know the Trust dont have the same deal - the sellouts dont have the 0.5% every year for five years for example, they were allowed to choose what they wanted to sell as part of the initial deal |  | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:24 - Dec 16 with 1401 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:19 - Dec 16 by wobbly |
Its an AGM. The notice of the meeting at the very least will include election or re-election of directors. Even if it isn't, rule 24, subsection b, sub section c (which is actually a typo, it should really be sub section iii, ) of the model rules means the election of directors is on the agenda for the AGM.
The legal precedent of Betts vs Mcnaughton means that if it's on the agenda, someone other than the named directors can be proposed from the floor at the AGM and, if they garner enough votes, could get onto the board instead. That's just one possible way to change the dynamic of the meeting if people were so interested. A late push for box office representation? ;)
AGMs are great if you want to be mischievous. Shaky is right. |
We appear to have a legal ringer in the house; excellent news! | |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:26 - Dec 16 with 1394 views | Wingstandwood |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:08 - Dec 16 by MoscowJack |
Regarding whether the deal has actually changed or not, I basically see this as a very simple sample of what's happened.
Trust: OK, let's see if we can do a deal on reasonable terms but if they try to screw us, we walk away without hesitation or question.
SCFC Board: Here's a deal - it's the same as the previous Board got! Take it or leave it.
Trust: Great, it's a reasonable deal and they haven't tried to screw us....let's present it to the members and advise on it being passed.
SCFC Board: Oh, and here's one or two other changes too.....just a few.....
Trust: Oh sh!t, here they go. We knew this would happen. I'm outta here (exit Phil and Matt).
SCFC Board: Ok, ok.....calm down....we'll, erm....keep the original deal so you can tell your believed dog's tails that nothing's changed and allow the deal to go through asap (with the drag rights added, of course, to allow us to sell without any worries of future court action).
That's how I see it and I also really worry why some on the Trust Board are pushing so hard for this. Maybe one (!) or two are too close to those advising the Americans? That's just a guess but something stinks....really badly.
I also don't think battering Ux for being honest is going to help anyone. At least he's had the balls to come on here and say what he thinks, whether it's right or wrong. He might have been flippant towards some, but from what I've seen he's generally treated people the way he's been treated by them himself. I know he's an easy target, but isn't he one of the people who we actually NEED on the Trust Board to help us shape the future of it? |
My take? I'd guess maybe the scum i.e. Jenkins, Yanks and sell-outs have gone about a goal-post moving deal that is so one sided it could be classed to be an obscenity????
I’ve read stories about gagging orders and confidentiality clauses in newspapers totally unconnected/nothing to do with this, and it would not surprise me if the scum i.e. Jenkins, Yanks and sell-outs would like some of that also????
I'd guess Jenkins, Yanks and sell-outs would want to forever silence the trust as part of a deal. Lets be honest here if the club ever got relegated the sh#t would really hit the fan. I guess they’re terrified of a new leadership coming in and finding out facts not yet in the public domain. A bit like Jenkins being exposed as the complete and utter scum he is in court this week. I bet we do not know arf. [Post edited 16 Dec 2017 20:32]
| |
| |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:30 - Dec 16 with 1382 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:19 - Dec 16 by wobbly |
Its an AGM. The notice of the meeting at the very least will include election or re-election of directors. Even if it isn't, rule 24, subsection b, sub section c (which is actually a typo, it should really be sub section iii, ) of the model rules means the election of directors is on the agenda for the AGM.
The legal precedent of Betts vs Mcnaughton means that if it's on the agenda, someone other than the named directors can be proposed from the floor at the AGM and, if they garner enough votes, could get onto the board instead. That's just one possible way to change the dynamic of the meeting if people were so interested. A late push for box office representation? ;)
AGMs are great if you want to be mischievous. Shaky is right. |
I know, that's why I said so two or three pages ago before Shaky said it was wrong...
The reelection of 4 of the 8 has to be in the agenda irrespective of letters or anything else.
It's an easier way forward which was my entire point, | | | |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:32 - Dec 16 with 1366 views | Shaky |
| Vote of no confidence thread. on 20:30 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
I know, that's why I said so two or three pages ago before Shaky said it was wrong...
The reelection of 4 of the 8 has to be in the agenda irrespective of letters or anything else.
It's an easier way forward which was my entire point, |
You still don't get it.
The election of directors is on the agenda. Period. (as the Americans say) | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
