| Any Trust members 10:39 - Jul 28 with 15576 views | swancity |
care to provide an update regarding the (potential) case against Jenkins etc ? |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| Any Trust members on 21:40 - Aug 14 with 1088 views | waynekerr55 |
| Any Trust members on 20:06 - Aug 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If the Trust said tax would not be payable then this would be minuted somewhere presumably before the second vote. Perhaps you could dig that up? No point mentioning it on mere heresay. I assumed it would be payable and that is normal for most capital gains. Capital gains would be massive.
The US people stated they withdrew from the 2017 talks after considerable internal acrimony within the Trust, and from my recollection two Chairmen resigned during the talks as a deal approached. They also stated the terms were better than those offered to other sellers. I think in most organisations two resignation within days could be described as unusual to say the least. They were the buyers and that is their reason for withdrawal. Who can prove it was not the case? Reported in the BBC and Walesonline. |
Yeah, that'll be it. |  |
| |
| Any Trust members on 00:35 - Aug 15 with 1042 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 17:30 - Aug 14 by waynekerr55 |
How does it look less likely? Utter rubbish I'm afraid - you're telling me legal fees and tax will knock circa 10m off the value of the shares?
The owners reneged on the agreed deal and won't engage in mediation
The owners are on camera stating that Jenkins and Dineen told them to keep the Trust out of the deal.
How does this weaken the case? [Post edited 14 Aug 2020 17:31]
|
It won't affect the value of the shares, it will mean any returns from those shares will also need to serve significant resulting overheads. I don't believe tax won't be owed, I would need to be convinced of that. As to the legal fees, it's anyone's guess but to say the fees could be massive is no understatement.
Those points you highlighted don't weaken the case - that IS the case. What may weaken the case is the fact that the Trust have waited until relegation before deciding to take them to court when they were prejudiced immediately.
The Trust were warned that this needed immediate legal action and were warned that the damage that will be done by actively (and inexplicably) trying to not go down the legal route could be irreparable. So when I say they lacked business acumen and lacked foresight - this is what I mean.
Time absolutely has a bearing on unfair prejudice cases.
Waldron v Waldron [2019] one such example where the petitioner had apparently made a tactical decision around tolerating the allegedly unfairly prejudicial conduct. In that case the petitioner had taken a back seat in the running of the company and had allowed the respondent to run it. The respondent had drawn sums commensurate with their role as a business leader. After a period of time the petitioner tried to challenge that but they were denied relief as a result of their delay.
Lets face it, this isn't just any old delay. Best case scenario we are looking at what... 5 years since prejudiced? Ridiculous, and they only have themselves to blame on that front. How anyone can disagree with that is beyond me. [Post edited 15 Aug 2020 0:48]
|  |
| |
| Any Trust members on 11:23 - Aug 15 with 952 views | waynekerr55 |
| Any Trust members on 00:35 - Aug 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
It won't affect the value of the shares, it will mean any returns from those shares will also need to serve significant resulting overheads. I don't believe tax won't be owed, I would need to be convinced of that. As to the legal fees, it's anyone's guess but to say the fees could be massive is no understatement.
Those points you highlighted don't weaken the case - that IS the case. What may weaken the case is the fact that the Trust have waited until relegation before deciding to take them to court when they were prejudiced immediately.
The Trust were warned that this needed immediate legal action and were warned that the damage that will be done by actively (and inexplicably) trying to not go down the legal route could be irreparable. So when I say they lacked business acumen and lacked foresight - this is what I mean.
Time absolutely has a bearing on unfair prejudice cases.
Waldron v Waldron [2019] one such example where the petitioner had apparently made a tactical decision around tolerating the allegedly unfairly prejudicial conduct. In that case the petitioner had taken a back seat in the running of the company and had allowed the respondent to run it. The respondent had drawn sums commensurate with their role as a business leader. After a period of time the petitioner tried to challenge that but they were denied relief as a result of their delay.
Lets face it, this isn't just any old delay. Best case scenario we are looking at what... 5 years since prejudiced? Ridiculous, and they only have themselves to blame on that front. How anyone can disagree with that is beyond me. [Post edited 15 Aug 2020 0:48]
|
Because that's how the process works and litigation requires all aspects to be exhausted. They didn't start the process when we were relegated so that's another incorrect bit of information
Google Kleanthous and Paphitis and read the judges comments on the case - judges expect all avenues to be exhausted and they don't take too kindly to disingenuous behaviour. [Post edited 15 Aug 2020 11:25]
| |
| |
| Any Trust members on 11:27 - Aug 15 with 950 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 11:23 - Aug 15 by waynekerr55 |
Because that's how the process works and litigation requires all aspects to be exhausted. They didn't start the process when we were relegated so that's another incorrect bit of information
Google Kleanthous and Paphitis and read the judges comments on the case - judges expect all avenues to be exhausted and they don't take too kindly to disingenuous behaviour. [Post edited 15 Aug 2020 11:25]
|
What do you mean that’s how the process works? No unfair prejudice case takes 5 years to prepare and no adjudicator in the land will believe it.
The Americans will have exact dates and will have minuted discussions to show that the Trust tolerated the prejudice and delayed action significantly until the company (and thus shares) lost value.
Spin it any way, it is not a good look. In fact is awful. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 11:41 - Aug 15 with 941 views | waynekerr55 |
| Any Trust members on 11:27 - Aug 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
What do you mean that’s how the process works? No unfair prejudice case takes 5 years to prepare and no adjudicator in the land will believe it.
The Americans will have exact dates and will have minuted discussions to show that the Trust tolerated the prejudice and delayed action significantly until the company (and thus shares) lost value.
Spin it any way, it is not a good look. In fact is awful. |
I'm sure these facts will be out there in the truth one day. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 12:38 - Aug 16 with 851 views | Chief |
| Any Trust members on 11:27 - Aug 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
What do you mean that’s how the process works? No unfair prejudice case takes 5 years to prepare and no adjudicator in the land will believe it.
The Americans will have exact dates and will have minuted discussions to show that the Trust tolerated the prejudice and delayed action significantly until the company (and thus shares) lost value.
Spin it any way, it is not a good look. In fact is awful. |
Quite the opposite actually.
The exact reason (apart from time it takes to ballot members once, then deal with the offer that was presented and then ballot again) this is taking so long is to make sure that all other avenues (ie offers of mediation etc) and all I's are dotted and t's crossed to make the case and court campaign as robust as possible. And that's on legal advice.
So far from awful. Its actually frustrating but commendable. |  |
| |
| Any Trust members on 12:44 - Aug 16 with 847 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 12:38 - Aug 16 by Chief |
Quite the opposite actually.
The exact reason (apart from time it takes to ballot members once, then deal with the offer that was presented and then ballot again) this is taking so long is to make sure that all other avenues (ie offers of mediation etc) and all I's are dotted and t's crossed to make the case and court campaign as robust as possible. And that's on legal advice.
So far from awful. Its actually frustrating but commendable. |
That’s nonsense and no court in the land will buy that.
As I said the timeline of events will be drawn up with a fine-tooth comb and saying it’s taken 5 years to dot i’s and cross t’s just won’t wash.
You are forgetting the part where the Trust actually forced through a “non litigation” option. Had they been able to argue that their intentions were always to take legal action and could show clearly why it took 5 years to bring it to legal, then they would have a case.
Unfortunately not even the most one eyes Trust supporter can pretend that is the case. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 12:55 - Aug 16 with 841 views | Chief |
| Any Trust members on 12:44 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
That’s nonsense and no court in the land will buy that.
As I said the timeline of events will be drawn up with a fine-tooth comb and saying it’s taken 5 years to dot i’s and cross t’s just won’t wash.
You are forgetting the part where the Trust actually forced through a “non litigation” option. Had they been able to argue that their intentions were always to take legal action and could show clearly why it took 5 years to bring it to legal, then they would have a case.
Unfortunately not even the most one eyes Trust supporter can pretend that is the case. |
So the trusts legal representation is giving poor advice then? Because from the start the advice has been to do everything possible first to try and not go to court. Such options obviously take time.
And this detailed timeline you speak of will profile such efforts as well as the other factors¤t pandemic situation.
Luckily the dismissive and naive 'not having a good look' mantra isn't one that will be considered by legal counsel or the court. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Any Trust members on 12:59 - Aug 16 with 838 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 12:55 - Aug 16 by Chief |
So the trusts legal representation is giving poor advice then? Because from the start the advice has been to do everything possible first to try and not go to court. Such options obviously take time.
And this detailed timeline you speak of will profile such efforts as well as the other factors¤t pandemic situation.
Luckily the dismissive and naive 'not having a good look' mantra isn't one that will be considered by legal counsel or the court. |
Those options don’t take 5 years.
I would have to see the Trusts legal advice, I don’t believe (not that it has any impact) that the advice was to do everything possible to avoid court. If they were told that then yes, that’s clearly very poor advice.
What do you mean the court won’t consider the delays? Of course they will. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 13:09 - Aug 16 with 835 views | Chief |
| Any Trust members on 12:59 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
Those options don’t take 5 years.
I would have to see the Trusts legal advice, I don’t believe (not that it has any impact) that the advice was to do everything possible to avoid court. If they were told that then yes, that’s clearly very poor advice.
What do you mean the court won’t consider the delays? Of course they will. |
I didn't say they wouldn't consider delays - I implied the exact opposite. A court and legal counsel will forensically scrutinise such a timeline and 'delay' and all therefore see what these delays are made up of. So while a sweeping 5 year statement may seem excessive to a complete layperson anyone who's been keeping abreast of things knows better.
I'm not sure the 'delays' (time lapse would be the correct term) are particularly relevant compared to the actual crux of the case anyway.
I don't see why you think trying to avoid formal litigation would be bad advice? Surely that's common sense? The courts don't want cases clogging up the system that could be dealt with by alternative means do they? | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 13:19 - Aug 16 with 826 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 13:09 - Aug 16 by Chief |
I didn't say they wouldn't consider delays - I implied the exact opposite. A court and legal counsel will forensically scrutinise such a timeline and 'delay' and all therefore see what these delays are made up of. So while a sweeping 5 year statement may seem excessive to a complete layperson anyone who's been keeping abreast of things knows better.
I'm not sure the 'delays' (time lapse would be the correct term) are particularly relevant compared to the actual crux of the case anyway.
I don't see why you think trying to avoid formal litigation would be bad advice? Surely that's common sense? The courts don't want cases clogging up the system that could be dealt with by alternative means do they? |
So they will consider the bad look on the Trusts part then.
The delays are absolutely relevant to the case. It has a huge bearing on unfair prejudice cases. We don’t need to forensically examine the delays, we lived through them, we know what they were. They were certainly not used exhausting pre legal avenues, it’s just not true.
Avoiding legal action is bad advice because the Trust were prejudiced unfairly. Legal action should have been a very real option and one that should be explored immediately should it be clear no mediation would or could be reached.
This was clear very early on. The Trust also actively tried to sway the electorate to vote against it when it could have been done in exchange for a couple of million quid. These are all factors that will be considered, including the fact the situation was tolerated long before any legal angle was pursued.
Do it yourself. Pretend you are presenting the Trusts case and do a mock 5 year timeline to show there was no delay, you won’t be able to. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 13:32 - Aug 16 with 821 views | Chief |
| Any Trust members on 13:19 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
So they will consider the bad look on the Trusts part then.
The delays are absolutely relevant to the case. It has a huge bearing on unfair prejudice cases. We don’t need to forensically examine the delays, we lived through them, we know what they were. They were certainly not used exhausting pre legal avenues, it’s just not true.
Avoiding legal action is bad advice because the Trust were prejudiced unfairly. Legal action should have been a very real option and one that should be explored immediately should it be clear no mediation would or could be reached.
This was clear very early on. The Trust also actively tried to sway the electorate to vote against it when it could have been done in exchange for a couple of million quid. These are all factors that will be considered, including the fact the situation was tolerated long before any legal angle was pursued.
Do it yourself. Pretend you are presenting the Trusts case and do a mock 5 year timeline to show there was no delay, you won’t be able to. |
Well you are perceiving it to be a bad look, I'm going off legal advice. I don't really have any reason to doubt that.
We may not need to but the court will & they'll see the trust was acting on said legal advice.
You say the time was not used to explore preexisting avenues - have you forgotten the discussions of settlement? (Which was then rescinded - is that a good look on behalf of the Americans in your opinion?) Or the attempts at mediation? Various other communications between the parties?
Litigation was a real option from day 1, alternatives were explored, but to say it wasn't an option is strange.
I don't have much comment on the swaying bit, seems irrelevant because if there was swaying the members mostly evidently ignored it. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 13:38 - Aug 16 with 817 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 13:32 - Aug 16 by Chief |
Well you are perceiving it to be a bad look, I'm going off legal advice. I don't really have any reason to doubt that.
We may not need to but the court will & they'll see the trust was acting on said legal advice.
You say the time was not used to explore preexisting avenues - have you forgotten the discussions of settlement? (Which was then rescinded - is that a good look on behalf of the Americans in your opinion?) Or the attempts at mediation? Various other communications between the parties?
Litigation was a real option from day 1, alternatives were explored, but to say it wasn't an option is strange.
I don't have much comment on the swaying bit, seems irrelevant because if there was swaying the members mostly evidently ignored it. |
It’s not perceived, it’s not a good look. This is shown by previous cases where delays are shown to have negative consequences.
No I haven’t forgotten the discussions of settlement, in fact I specifically mentioned it in my last post. It was the time when the Trust has the option of legal action and actively swayed the decision to not take it. But that wasn’t anywhere close to being a timely manner after being prejudiced.
Why do you believe they ignored it? And why do you say “if” there was seating? It was the Trust’s official recommendation that they put out to the members who voted in kind. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 13:44 - Aug 16 with 812 views | onehunglow |
Some long discourse here but not from me.
I have asked for clarification from waynekerr and the proposed action and its purpose and he gracefully provided it.
If justice and /or closure is the reason then I'm afraid I don't see the point but that's me and ,in relation to the club,I'm nothing but anothere whinging voice in a wilderness of mistrust and subterfuge.
One clear I am clear about now is Mr Sumbler | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 13:50 - Aug 16 with 812 views | Chief |
| Any Trust members on 13:38 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s not perceived, it’s not a good look. This is shown by previous cases where delays are shown to have negative consequences.
No I haven’t forgotten the discussions of settlement, in fact I specifically mentioned it in my last post. It was the time when the Trust has the option of legal action and actively swayed the decision to not take it. But that wasn’t anywhere close to being a timely manner after being prejudiced.
Why do you believe they ignored it? And why do you say “if” there was seating? It was the Trust’s official recommendation that they put out to the members who voted in kind. |
Well as I've said previously to a complete layperson it could be a bad look. Show them the timeline and the reason why the trust took those actions (legal advice) and surely most would begin to see its certainly not a bad look- its prudent & realistic. We'll have to wait and see whether the court sees these actions as time wasting won't we. Legal advice suggests it won't.
Yes you mentioned the settlement ordeal&mediation but then contradicted yourself by not mentioning these when talking about alternative resolutions.
The members voted for legal action, so this apparent swaying you talk of was ignored by the large part.
I say 'if' (and again I'm not sure of the relevance of this) that's down to opinion, I personally wasn't swayed. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 13:57 - Aug 16 with 803 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 13:50 - Aug 16 by Chief |
Well as I've said previously to a complete layperson it could be a bad look. Show them the timeline and the reason why the trust took those actions (legal advice) and surely most would begin to see its certainly not a bad look- its prudent & realistic. We'll have to wait and see whether the court sees these actions as time wasting won't we. Legal advice suggests it won't.
Yes you mentioned the settlement ordeal&mediation but then contradicted yourself by not mentioning these when talking about alternative resolutions.
The members voted for legal action, so this apparent swaying you talk of was ignored by the large part.
I say 'if' (and again I'm not sure of the relevance of this) that's down to opinion, I personally wasn't swayed. |
It’s a bad look to anyone, as I have said I am a lifelong Swansea fan and know the ins and outs of a lot of the legal and Trust actions.. and it’s a bad look to me. It will certainly be a bad look to those without the personal connection to the club. Legal advice is not an excuse (although you are mistaken in what you stated, no legal advice would be to avoid it at all costs).
There was no contradiction there. I didn’t say at no point did they look for alternatives, I said they didn’t spend 5 years looking for alternatives and preparing a case. They have spent months on end (possibly even years) tolerating the arrangement as they felt it beneficial to them, they have statements suggesting so and wanting to work alongside the owners.
You seem to have your wires crossed regarding the vote. The vote was against legal action which was in line with the Trusts recommendation. Some 927 members voted in total, with 684 voting in favour of no legal action and to sell the shares to the Americans for £5m or whatever the amount was. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:00 - Aug 16 with 799 views | onehunglow |
Doctor.
Do you believe we really should draw a line under the sale or keep the pot boiling | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:08 - Aug 16 with 792 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 14:00 - Aug 16 by onehunglow |
Doctor.
Do you believe we really should draw a line under the sale or keep the pot boiling |
Don’t know to be honest.
I was fully behind legal action straight off the bat and think it would have been a winning case. Now I’m not so sure.
This delay will have a huge impact as I said, the new Chair was one of the most vocal anti legal action people there was. It would be a disaster to take them to court, lose, and as a result have an empty bank account and possible debt.
It’s all a bit of a mess really. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:13 - Aug 16 with 785 views | onehunglow |
Thanks Doc and my position entirely.Im on my own here and not for the firt time but Im not arsed frankly as I see abolutely no point in legal action if for no other reason than it puts off future buyers ,which is what we need .
My main concern was/is antagonising the Yanks so much so they decide to shaft us bigtime and they are in a position to do so.It s like pulling the tail of a snake.
Im not interested in how many JVZ ,Dineen or any of the seller made nor what done to effect the sale ;I just see the club as it is now and dragging a case through the courts for legal leeches to make big money seems not the bet option. Like you though,we are mere fans . | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:17 - Aug 16 with 780 views | Chief |
| Any Trust members on 13:57 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s a bad look to anyone, as I have said I am a lifelong Swansea fan and know the ins and outs of a lot of the legal and Trust actions.. and it’s a bad look to me. It will certainly be a bad look to those without the personal connection to the club. Legal advice is not an excuse (although you are mistaken in what you stated, no legal advice would be to avoid it at all costs).
There was no contradiction there. I didn’t say at no point did they look for alternatives, I said they didn’t spend 5 years looking for alternatives and preparing a case. They have spent months on end (possibly even years) tolerating the arrangement as they felt it beneficial to them, they have statements suggesting so and wanting to work alongside the owners.
You seem to have your wires crossed regarding the vote. The vote was against legal action which was in line with the Trusts recommendation. Some 927 members voted in total, with 684 voting in favour of no legal action and to sell the shares to the Americans for £5m or whatever the amount was. |
I don't think anyone (me, trust, legal advice etc) said has said the legal action should be at all costs. That's a fabrication on your behalf.
Its not a bad look to anyone - it's not a bad look to the legal counsel.
Well I don't see at which point the trust could have thought the arrangement could have been beneficial to them (can't see what you think the trust could have got out of it) - been pretty obvious from early on it wasn't. But, you've got to approach these things formally&giving the Americans the benefit of the doubt to see if they would engage & work with the trust was obviously a wise route.
That was the first vote - based on an offer avoiding legal action, understandable that people would to take the offer (then rescinded). There's no guarantees with a court case and fully see why still people are skeptical of one. Of course you've omitted the second vote. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:21 - Aug 16 with 777 views | onehunglow |
Chief.
You ay all costs but many are vehemently in favour of such action and I would suggest some would opine we "need" to do it. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:25 - Aug 16 with 772 views | Chief |
| Any Trust members on 14:21 - Aug 16 by onehunglow |
Chief.
You ay all costs but many are vehemently in favour of such action and I would suggest some would opine we "need" to do it. |
Ok thanks for that input. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:25 - Aug 16 with 771 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Any Trust members on 14:17 - Aug 16 by Chief |
I don't think anyone (me, trust, legal advice etc) said has said the legal action should be at all costs. That's a fabrication on your behalf.
Its not a bad look to anyone - it's not a bad look to the legal counsel.
Well I don't see at which point the trust could have thought the arrangement could have been beneficial to them (can't see what you think the trust could have got out of it) - been pretty obvious from early on it wasn't. But, you've got to approach these things formally&giving the Americans the benefit of the doubt to see if they would engage & work with the trust was obviously a wise route.
That was the first vote - based on an offer avoiding legal action, understandable that people would to take the offer (then rescinded). There's no guarantees with a court case and fully see why still people are skeptical of one. Of course you've omitted the second vote. |
It’s definitely a bad look. It will also without doubt be a large part of the consideration. They were prejudiced 5 years ago.
The Trust felt it beneficial to work with the Americans in the new ownership arrangement as they wanted to keep a presence in boardroom and even said they had improved relations. This was clearly a time where they were tolerating the arrangement and not seeking out legal action or alternatives.
I haven’t omitted the second vote, the second vote wasn’t the point I was making. The point I was making is that in the last 5 years the Trust has a clear route to legal action and actively swayed its members not to. What they did after that is irrelevant to the point I am making. | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:26 - Aug 16 with 770 views | onehunglow |
It's ok.It's good to be humble | |
| |
| Any Trust members on 14:32 - Aug 16 with 765 views | Chief |
| Any Trust members on 14:25 - Aug 16 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s definitely a bad look. It will also without doubt be a large part of the consideration. They were prejudiced 5 years ago.
The Trust felt it beneficial to work with the Americans in the new ownership arrangement as they wanted to keep a presence in boardroom and even said they had improved relations. This was clearly a time where they were tolerating the arrangement and not seeking out legal action or alternatives.
I haven’t omitted the second vote, the second vote wasn’t the point I was making. The point I was making is that in the last 5 years the Trust has a clear route to legal action and actively swayed its members not to. What they did after that is irrelevant to the point I am making. |
5 Years ago but have since:
- Attempted extensive dialogue&working relationship with the new owners(also new personnel Birch etc)
- Consulted members.
- 2 democratic ballot.
- Considered settlement.
- Attempted mediation.
- Covid delays.
- Gathering/collating evidence.
Various things I've no doubt missed and the extensive administrative work that go along with everything above. These are unpaid non professionals, with lives and jobs.
Do you dispute any of the above!? Am I being unreasonable?
Yes well with a decent relationship with the owners, why would there be a need for conflict and litigation?
Well you didn't mention the second vote. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
