| Swansea City Supporters Trust 20:42 - Dec 11 with 13558 views | TheResurrection |
Right, let's make today the start of a new dawn for the Trust and make sure we all get the transparency it needs.
Phil, can you make this a permanent sticky so posters have a focal point for anything Trust related?
Firstly I'd like to ask to see the 5 new Trust Board member's 250 words.
Ux, can you get Nigel Hamer to send you those so we can have a read and see what we're getting. Also can we see the words of the applicants that didn't get on, to see what we missed out on?
I understand the Chairman is being announced, or at least discussed in a meeting tomorrow. What is the criteria for the decision making for that appointment?
Thanks in advance. |  |
| |  |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:57 - Dec 14 with 1162 views | vetchonian |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:43 - Dec 13 by NeathJack |
I hope there is a proposal at tomorrows forum and a binding vote from the floor to request/demand the removal of Huw Jenkins as Chairman and de-facto DOF.
Even if the Yanks ignore it, it would be a worthwhile undertaking as it would put pressure on the Yanks/Jenkins and hopefully at the very least increase awareness among the many fans who still seem oblivious to goings on. |
As much as I am angered with Huw Jenkins for his actions.....plus i have previously critisced him on here questioning his footbal decisions and "luck" when appointing managers....I am not sure this is the right time for him to go.
Who would replace him?
Would you be happy with the likes of Landon Donovan? or maybe even Bob Brankley as DoF?
I would agree with his removal IF the Trust has some involvment with the appointment of a successor.....BUT we have to remember his main role is that of chairman....who knows who the YHanks might appoint.
AND PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS ME SUPPORTING JENKINS.....I despise him for what he did to our football club....he had ripped the heart and soulf from it whilst lining his pockets for this I will never forgive him |  |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:11 - Dec 14 with 1126 views | Jack_Kass |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:57 - Dec 14 by vetchonian |
As much as I am angered with Huw Jenkins for his actions.....plus i have previously critisced him on here questioning his footbal decisions and "luck" when appointing managers....I am not sure this is the right time for him to go.
Who would replace him?
Would you be happy with the likes of Landon Donovan? or maybe even Bob Brankley as DoF?
I would agree with his removal IF the Trust has some involvment with the appointment of a successor.....BUT we have to remember his main role is that of chairman....who knows who the YHanks might appoint.
AND PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS ME SUPPORTING JENKINS.....I despise him for what he did to our football club....he had ripped the heart and soulf from it whilst lining his pockets for this I will never forgive him |
I agree I think it's better the devil you know, at the moment.
There are so many factors and agendas in play at the moment, it's very little doubt to me that HJ is expendable to the owners, and ithey'd be more than happy to bin him. What the alternative would be, could be anyone's guess. | |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:05 - Dec 14 with 1065 views | TheResurrection |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:57 - Dec 14 by vetchonian |
As much as I am angered with Huw Jenkins for his actions.....plus i have previously critisced him on here questioning his footbal decisions and "luck" when appointing managers....I am not sure this is the right time for him to go.
Who would replace him?
Would you be happy with the likes of Landon Donovan? or maybe even Bob Brankley as DoF?
I would agree with his removal IF the Trust has some involvment with the appointment of a successor.....BUT we have to remember his main role is that of chairman....who knows who the YHanks might appoint.
AND PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS ME SUPPORTING JENKINS.....I despise him for what he did to our football club....he had ripped the heart and soulf from it whilst lining his pockets for this I will never forgive him |
Yes, it's what I've been saying for a while now.
If we're going to get rid then we need to plan thoroughly and execute timely.
The ones calling for his head willy-nilly just aren't thinking. | |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:55 - Dec 14 with 1026 views | swanseajack4eva |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:05 - Dec 14 by TheResurrection |
Yes, it's what I've been saying for a while now.
If we're going to get rid then we need to plan thoroughly and execute timely.
The ones calling for his head willy-nilly just aren't thinking. |
That is right. The most important and urgent matter right now is not proceeding with the share sale as the Trust board seems to want to do, and with new board members now having voices go back to members for a vote based on proper facts. |  | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:25 - Dec 14 with 970 views | Nookiejack |
A plan also needs to be developed (including court injunctions) to stop the Yanks getting money offshore through excessive Management Fees.
This in my view could be a likely scenario if we are relegated and they then bank the parachute money and sell remaining players with value - to recoup their £68m.
They will not be wanting to pay 21% of player sales and the parachute money - to the Trust. | | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:41 - Dec 14 with 961 views | chad |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:51 - Dec 14 by Uxbridge |
Nah. And don't bring me into this theory of yours regarding the presentation of the QC guidance. There's plenty of threads on here which cover that back in the summer and Lisa conveniently backed that up.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the same rigour being applied to all sides of the argument. Otherwise it'd be terribly hypocritical.  |
What “theory” would that be Ux — instead of belittling people with comments like Fantasy Island when you deny evidenced facts perhaps it would be helpful if you just kept to the facts please.
Let us turn our attention to what was actually said — bearing in mind you admitting the actual facts to Lisa, from her direct questioning of you
(“I asked Uxbridge outright”)
In no way negates false impression given by you — or repeated false statements from Phil about Counsel and the deal e.g.
“All we know there is what the QC said, the same QC that also suggested the deal should be recommended”
(the QC) “certainly always said that we should make the recommendation which we did”
In fact Lisa very clearly said about comments made by a poster who had been misled to think Counsel recommended the deal by such comments…
[No, I don't think you did misread. I think that it's been couched in ambiguity to make people think that's what happened.
We may draw a parallel with the final admission that Huw C was being paid (interestingly enough again had to be admitted under direct questioning from Lisa).
That does not negate the fact that the Trust had been deceiving the membership by not only hiding this fact when serious concerns had been raised, but allowing without comment a senior Trust Board member to openly and repeatedly go into print to state Huw was not being paid.
As for your part I ask again, are you denying for example saying on this very forum (in relation to taking legal action)...
"When your own QC is saying that it's a last resort then you need to take notice"
as I said what implication do you expect people to take from that? Especially when said by a Trust Board member.
------------------------------------------------------
Here is a little reminder if you cannot recall…
Thread Name / Page : Interesting Trust Email — Page: 2
Post Date and Time: 29th June — 22:24 — evening of initial consultation / deal recommendation
(also the last day to join Trust and be eligible to vote — a vote promised / known about for months)
If you have any trouble finding it I include the link below it is near the top of the 4th paragraph in the above post
URL:
It is about a dozen posts below the one where Phil states
“There is little point in paying for top QC advice and ignoring it really...”
I will let you muse on the irony of that one
Further confirmation: fast forward a few hours to 07:11 the next morning, page 4 of same thread, Phil’s first post on that page. We now have the Trust Chair driving home your message
“As Uxbridge says when the legal person you consult says the litigation is the last resort then you have to read into that and act accordingly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:02 - Dec 14 with 933 views | Uxbridge |
Are you actually saying that legal action isn't the point of last resort? If you are, I'm never going to agree there.
If Lisa feels that the issue of what the QC said was in any way ambiguous then obviously I completely disagree. I stated on here enough times that his guidance was purely on the merits of the legal case and the likely remedies. Any lawyer worth their salt would tell you to settle if at all possible. We can argue on whether the deal is sufficient to negate that or not, but the it was stated plenty of times that the QC didn't rule on the settlement itself.
Old ground though. Little point in revisiting it. |  |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:16 - Dec 14 with 915 views | BillyChong |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:41 - Dec 14 by Nookiejack |
"As I said at the pre vote meeting, to keep the shares we had worked so hard to earn, was the choice of the heart, to take legal action was the vote of the head and our best chance to achieve the aims of the Trust long term, given the impossible situation we had been placed in by the sale, where our shares were pretty much worthless and keeping them added little or nothing to our influence given the track record and primary aims of the new owners.
The deal (which passed all control to the new owners, on when, and by whom, the Trust would be bought out of the club) only made any sense if the share prices rocketed. Even in the event of that very unlikely looking scenario occurring, we gifted the sellers options to buy further large tranches of our shares at the old price so they could make further significant profits off our backs, and in the meantime had to bend totally to their power. "
This is a great post - the leaders of the Trust Board got the strategy wrong (and yes I think you are right it was a choice of the heart, so it is difficult to be hard on them) - they thought we would stay in the PL for ever, even though the probabilities will always work against us for a club of our size. (you just have to have a couple of bad transfer windows or a bad run of injuries to your top players, bad managerial appointment (which I don't think Clement is) and you are going to be in a relegation fight.
They didn't take into consideration that each and every season 3 clubs are relegated.
Those leaders got it wrong and have potentially put the £20m legacy in severe risk. I worry that some of those remaining leaders are still pulling the strings.
"The deal (which passed all control to the new owners, on when, and by whom, the Trust would be bought out of the club) only made any sense if the share prices rocketed. Even in the event of that very unlikely looking scenario occurring, we gifted the sellers options to buy further large tranches of our shares at the old price so they could make further significant profits off our backs, and in the meantime had to bend totally to their power. "
Very good summary again and I would add 1 thing to this - in the relegation scenario which we are now staring at - conceding the drag rights means that all the Trust's shares could be bought out for a few pence. (Noting the Trust would receive £5m for first 5% tranche). Essentially £15m (£20m - £5m) has a very high probability of being lost and the Trust will be left with NIL shares. |
They either got the strategy wrong (aka dropped a bollock), were a bit naive, or arrogant enough to refuse to sway from the script. Jenkins and co have made complete mugs of the trust and us supporters in general. How they’ve gotten away with it is beyond me. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.