| The Leigh Dineen interview on 08:57 - Jan 1 with 7524 views | Pegojack |
Nice whitewash job, Leigh. Not. |  | |  |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 08:58 - Jan 1 with 7519 views | Neath_Jack |
F*cking snake. |  |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:08 - Jan 1 with 7476 views | leebracey |
Not exactly probing questions for him to answer. Brief analogy - If you are married to someone and then cheat on them after 15 years, you are still the bad guy. That's this lot of plebs.
Also, "Developing the brand"!??, get a grip. Its a football club which fans have given up money/time/work over the years travelling the country, simply because they love Swansea City. Stick your brand up your arse. |  | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:12 - Jan 1 with 7460 views | Dr_Winston |
Two things stand out for me.
The lack of any kind of reference to him initially being the lead supporters Trust guy, then changing teams.
The lack of acknowledgement that things were on the slide on the pitch before the takeover. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:15 - Jan 1 with 7446 views | Chief |
Few interesting points:
- he said he (bulk vending machines) has not refused mediation - is this true trust?
- he said he's not sure about the Americans long term goals - so much for them selling for the best of the club rubbish they keep spouting then.
- he says he had no say in the sale - trying to push the blame elsewhere then?
- he confirmed the shambles and amateurish way that the Siggy sale was handled and said that they needed to guarantee that the money came in before doing business. Why? With wealthy American backers 'with the resources to make us compete' we should have been able to go into the market before the Siggy deal was finalised. [Post edited 1 Jan 2020 9:17]
|  |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:24 - Jan 1 with 7401 views | 3swan |
He also makes the comment of them once having control but then very little. No comment about giving away voting rights leaving the Trust in that position. Also why an interview now is it still an ego thing? |  | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:34 - Jan 1 with 7352 views | ItchySphincter |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:12 - Jan 1 by Dr_Winston |
Two things stand out for me.
The lack of any kind of reference to him initially being the lead supporters Trust guy, then changing teams.
The lack of acknowledgement that things were on the slide on the pitch before the takeover. |
To me this will always be the problem with taking LD at face value. No amount of bullshit can square that one away, and funnily enough he never ever really gets pressed on it. |  |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:35 - Jan 1 with 7346 views | Chief |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:34 - Jan 1 by ItchySphincter |
To me this will always be the problem with taking LD at face value. No amount of bullshit can square that one away, and funnily enough he never ever really gets pressed on it. |
Only on twitter.
But then he blocks people who ask awkward questions. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:39 - Jan 1 with 7329 views | 3swan |
Nothing new said. What did he think he would gain by the interview. Not how I wanted to start the new year off with. Relaxed this morning but now the situation back in my thoughts. | | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:47 - Jan 1 with 7276 views | dobjack2 |
It wasn’t me ... | | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:49 - Jan 1 with 7266 views | thornabyswan |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:39 - Jan 1 by 3swan |
Nothing new said. What did he think he would gain by the interview. Not how I wanted to start the new year off with. Relaxed this morning but now the situation back in my thoughts. |
Badlands was unavailable for comment  | |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:11 - Jan 1 with 7177 views | swancity |
Id suggest he’s pooing his pants hence this interview which he may well have instigated
Why did you deceive the the Trust ? Lied to them. Omitted them. People that were close to you. The most important key questions weren’t put to him. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:16 - Jan 1 with 7151 views | wobbly |
"If the other major shareholders at the time wanted to sell, I'd be silly not to have sold because otherwise I'm just left there with 1.6%“
Yeah, imagine what it would be like if you had 21% and didn’t have the chance to sell. The massive tw*t. |  | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:18 - Jan 1 with 7138 views | 3swan |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:16 - Jan 1 by wobbly |
"If the other major shareholders at the time wanted to sell, I'd be silly not to have sold because otherwise I'm just left there with 1.6%“
Yeah, imagine what it would be like if you had 21% and didn’t have the chance to sell. The massive tw*t. |
Irony. The interview is full of it | | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:20 - Jan 1 with 7128 views | Cooperman |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:12 - Jan 1 by Dr_Winston |
Two things stand out for me.
The lack of any kind of reference to him initially being the lead supporters Trust guy, then changing teams.
The lack of acknowledgement that things were on the slide on the pitch before the takeover. |
A third for me as well as those two - he says that Bulk Vending were never consulted. Why the particular reference to Bulk Vending rather than him as an individual? If it’s deflection tactics then they are extremely poor. |  |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:25 - Jan 1 with 7106 views | wobbly |
This c*nt screwed the supporters nearly 4 years ago with his conduct over the sale. He finally left his role 3 months ago. It’s now 2020 and we still have this tw*t doing media interviews. When will we finally be rid of these grasping, greedy leeches? | | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:26 - Jan 1 with 7097 views | thornabyswan |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:11 - Jan 1 by swancity |
Id suggest he’s pooing his pants hence this interview which he may well have instigated
Why did you deceive the the Trust ? Lied to them. Omitted them. People that were close to you. The most important key questions weren’t put to him. |
Of course it was instigated my guess is he listed the questions as well. | |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:32 - Jan 1 with 7054 views | exiledclaseboy |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:12 - Jan 1 by Dr_Winston |
Two things stand out for me.
The lack of any kind of reference to him initially being the lead supporters Trust guy, then changing teams.
The lack of acknowledgement that things were on the slide on the pitch before the takeover. |
“Dineen was appointed as vice-chairman in 2002 following the removal of controversial figure Tony Petty.”
He obviously said that he was chair of the Trust at the time and then he sold the trust down the river to take a personal shareholding later on and then sold the trust down the river again by helping to deliberately exclude it from the sale to the current holders. They just forgot to print that bit. Can’t be any other reason for the exclusion can there? |  |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:46 - Jan 1 with 6989 views | Catullus |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:16 - Jan 1 by wobbly |
"If the other major shareholders at the time wanted to sell, I'd be silly not to have sold because otherwise I'm just left there with 1.6%“
Yeah, imagine what it would be like if you had 21% and didn’t have the chance to sell. The massive tw*t. |
Yeah that comment makes the whole thing look even worse. The deceit and deception around the whole deal is shocking.
Thing is I still think (whatever their true intentions) our current owners got caught out. I reckon they thought they were buying a stable EPL club, not one on the brink. I know we tend to thinbk of American businessmen as being street smart but I honestlyt hink they were fooled.
Whatever Dineed says the club wasn't sold to L&K because it was best for the club, it was a cashing in. They knew the continued ownership would put them in a difficult financial position as they had allowed the wage bill to spiral (good budgetary control having been lost at some point) so they chose to cash in.
There was bad decision after bad decision like bringing Bony back, a player dogged by injury who hadn't played regularly (even when fit) for a dumb fee and dumber wages. Not to forget we wouldn't pay 8 million for Joe Allen but then splurged twice as much on Clucas. Absolute gross stupidity.
Tat's just my opinion of course. | |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:48 - Jan 1 with 6981 views | swan65split |
Remember this ....."Once we managed to buy Tony Petty out with the help of the ....Supporters' Trust,"...........you greedy bathplugs., yes fook the ones that helped you.
Yes its a "i"m shitting myself story" |  | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:54 - Jan 1 with 6936 views | 3swan |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:32 - Jan 1 by exiledclaseboy |
“Dineen was appointed as vice-chairman in 2002 following the removal of controversial figure Tony Petty.”
He obviously said that he was chair of the Trust at the time and then he sold the trust down the river to take a personal shareholding later on and then sold the trust down the river again by helping to deliberately exclude it from the sale to the current holders. They just forgot to print that bit. Can’t be any other reason for the exclusion can there? |
Maybe he needs to read this https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-facts-and-history/ | | | |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 11:02 - Jan 1 with 6892 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 10:46 - Jan 1 by Catullus |
Yeah that comment makes the whole thing look even worse. The deceit and deception around the whole deal is shocking.
Thing is I still think (whatever their true intentions) our current owners got caught out. I reckon they thought they were buying a stable EPL club, not one on the brink. I know we tend to thinbk of American businessmen as being street smart but I honestlyt hink they were fooled.
Whatever Dineed says the club wasn't sold to L&K because it was best for the club, it was a cashing in. They knew the continued ownership would put them in a difficult financial position as they had allowed the wage bill to spiral (good budgetary control having been lost at some point) so they chose to cash in.
There was bad decision after bad decision like bringing Bony back, a player dogged by injury who hadn't played regularly (even when fit) for a dumb fee and dumber wages. Not to forget we wouldn't pay 8 million for Joe Allen but then splurged twice as much on Clucas. Absolute gross stupidity.
Tat's just my opinion of course. |
The Americans don’t understand football if they think a club our size can ever be a stable Premier League club. We would always be one bad transfer window and a few injuries away from the danger of relegation. Much bigger clubs than us have failed to stabilise themselves in the Premier League.
Of course they sold to the first people they could find who had the money. The only due diligence they were interested in was to make sure Jason and Steve had the cash to do the deal. They knew that the buyers wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny in terms of their suitability as owners and that was why they excluded the Trust. The Trust had already scuppered one deal (with Moores and Noel) and the sellouts weren’t going to let that happen again. |  |
| |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 11:10 - Jan 1 with 6823 views | Phil_S |
| The Leigh Dineen interview on 09:15 - Jan 1 by Chief |
Few interesting points:
- he said he (bulk vending machines) has not refused mediation - is this true trust?
- he said he's not sure about the Americans long term goals - so much for them selling for the best of the club rubbish they keep spouting then.
- he says he had no say in the sale - trying to push the blame elsewhere then?
- he confirmed the shambles and amateurish way that the Siggy sale was handled and said that they needed to guarantee that the money came in before doing business. Why? With wealthy American backers 'with the resources to make us compete' we should have been able to go into the market before the Siggy deal was finalised. [Post edited 1 Jan 2020 9:17]
|
Just to pick up on the first point
The lawyers acting on behalf of all sellers informed the trust that they would refuse to comply with practice direction at the request of their clients. This is a pre-requisite to mediation (and covered in more detail here https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2019/02/13/trust-response-to-press-article/)
On having no say in the sale I think it just fair to say that the night that the Trust (represented by myself, Huw Cooze and Stuart MacDonald) were advised of the first detail of the sale (towards the end of March 2016) then the only two people present about it were Huw Jenkins and Leigh Dineen. When representatives of the Trust (myself, Huw Cooze, Dai Little and Rich Major met firstly with Levien and then with Martin Morgan and Brian Katzen prior to the Chelsea game then the two current shareholders (at that time) were clear that it was the Chairman and Vice Chairman who were driving the sale.
Also right to remember at this point that between those two meetings all shareholders at that time were informed by the Trust that they may wish to be party to a sale if it was in the best interests of the football club
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
