| No court action? on 14:17 - Feb 16 with 1787 views | Whiterockin |
| No court action? on 14:01 - Feb 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The membership voted for legal action knowing full well they could not fund it. It is a complex business putting an unacceptable load on volunteers.
Member did not understand the concept of "last resort".
The members are to blame for this debacle. |
So first you blame the previous trust board now you are blaming the membership. |  | |  |
| No court action? on 14:25 - Feb 16 with 1756 views | STID2017 |
| No court action? on 07:54 - Feb 16 by Chief |
Haha yea very weird aspect of this is to pick up on my 'zero' comment.
It's obvious that vast majority of people think this is a bad deal. |
Apologies to you Chief.
I can see that the feeling on here ( and must be said on PS ) is very disappointed and angry with the Trust.
Sadly it is clear that the Trust has outlived it's uses.
As I put in an earlier post on here, think it should be dissolved and the funds put to good uses. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 14:39 - Feb 16 with 1742 views | builthjack |
| No court action? on 11:29 - Feb 16 by Dewi1jack |
" We need to somehow unite and quit the infighting. It has killed the club many times."
What a few of us have been pushing since the 1st vote options came out.
Think it's more true now the fan base has been sold down the swanee twice in 6 or 7 years (since the sale)
So we have common enemies there!
Had no problem with the sale and our previous owners to make money, providing it was on terms not detrimental to the Trust.
Our fears at the time seem to have come true. The Trust has been stitched by that sale. Now stitched again by the current Trust board
We need a common cause and it's not unload the yeehaas. Who IMHO, seem to be trying to get the club financially viable.
Singing the Welsh national anthem over GSTQ last Sunday was a show of how we do come together now and again!
Hopefully our common cause doesn't become a "Petty? Silver Shield" scenario, because quite frankly I believe that many of our older fans who "been there. Done that." may not be on board next time, remembering how it has all turned out now.
I hope to F**k I'm wrong
Accounts may prove me wrong. |
I could never understand the outcome of the first vote, which was not to fight for justice. Every person I knew who was a trust member, at least 40, had voted to fight. Yet when the result came out it was the opposite. I said on here that I smelt a rat.
Then the second vote a few years later, the result was fight. But years down the line the trust board ran away like scared kids.
All quite disgusting. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| No court action? on 14:39 - Feb 16 with 1738 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| No court action? on 14:17 - Feb 16 by Whiterockin |
So first you blame the previous trust board now you are blaming the membership. |
The membership elected the previous boards who had a bonkers strategy of getting to 25% holding. They were £4m short. With a strategy of getting to 25% they failed to see that they had made a 10,000% return on their investment. Yes TEN THOUSAND PERCENT.
The members did not audit this strategy. The members are not auditing what the golden 5% means now. Can the Trust sell it under any circumstances?
If Swansea get to the Premier league the 5% will be worth £10,000,000. TEN MILLION POUNDS. Here we go again. Money who needs it? |  |
| |
| No court action? on 14:50 - Feb 16 with 1712 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 13:33 - Feb 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust made one massive mistake they could not correct.
In 2016 with a x100 return on their investment (10,000% gain). They had to sell but did not. They were worth £21m and could have cashed in at least.
​
The stated they did not want to sell . A horrible mistake. The management of the Trust at that time made it not he Trust board of today, No one else but them to blame in my opinion.
All is not lost. A return to the PL sees them back in clover as Inflation has outrun dilution. |
You keep parroting this but it's fantasy. The trust couldn't have cashed in to the tune of £21mill because they'd didn't have an offer to do. They had a fairly decent offer in 2017 but the terms were quickly changed and then rescinded.
The trust stated they did not want to sell years prior. They specifically informed all the shareholders in no uncertain terms when they would consider selling and wanted to be part of negotiations.
You do not need to spread these lies anymore - the case isn't happening. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 14:53 - Feb 16 with 1710 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 14:01 - Feb 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The membership voted for legal action knowing full well they could not fund it. It is a complex business putting an unacceptable load on volunteers.
Member did not understand the concept of "last resort".
The members are to blame for this debacle. |
False. If this was an unfundable case, the plan of having a case at all wouldn't have got off the ground at all. This board are just too risk averse. Nothing to do with the members. | |
| |
| No court action? on 14:59 - Feb 16 with 1705 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 14:39 - Feb 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The membership elected the previous boards who had a bonkers strategy of getting to 25% holding. They were £4m short. With a strategy of getting to 25% they failed to see that they had made a 10,000% return on their investment. Yes TEN THOUSAND PERCENT.
The members did not audit this strategy. The members are not auditing what the golden 5% means now. Can the Trust sell it under any circumstances?
If Swansea get to the Premier league the 5% will be worth £10,000,000. TEN MILLION POUNDS. Here we go again. Money who needs it? |
That's entirely irrelevant though, looking into getting to 25% no matter how unlikely was a starting point. It predictably didn't work but it's not like they lost anything pursuing it. It was worth finding out before looking at the legal option. It was a very sound strategy.
as for this 5%, no idea, the current board seem clueless as to the deal they signed.
I can't see the club bring worth £200mill even in the unlikely event of us getting promoted and from what I've seen the 5% may not be included in the 'drag along' agreement. So we shouldn't get too excited. Plus it's not £21million. | |
| |
| No court action? on 15:16 - Feb 16 with 1677 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| No court action? on 14:59 - Feb 16 by Chief |
That's entirely irrelevant though, looking into getting to 25% no matter how unlikely was a starting point. It predictably didn't work but it's not like they lost anything pursuing it. It was worth finding out before looking at the legal option. It was a very sound strategy.
as for this 5%, no idea, the current board seem clueless as to the deal they signed.
I can't see the club bring worth £200mill even in the unlikely event of us getting promoted and from what I've seen the 5% may not be included in the 'drag along' agreement. So we shouldn't get too excited. Plus it's not £21million. |
Member need to get to grips with this 5% business. Can it ever be sold?
The 5% can attract dividends but will the club pay dividends very often? A 5% holding that cannot be sold is a dubious value. Why have the Trust converted something that could be sold into something that cannot be sold.
Is it a notional US give away but what is it worth? It would take £100 investment to dilute the Trust to less than 5%.
It is easy to say now the promotion is very unlikely . It always was. Swansea have a track record of surprising pundits and their own fans.
Members have got side tracked with things like 'voting rights' and 'getting justice' instead of concentrating on one thing. CASH. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| No court action? on 15:35 - Feb 16 with 1662 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 15:16 - Feb 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Member need to get to grips with this 5% business. Can it ever be sold?
The 5% can attract dividends but will the club pay dividends very often? A 5% holding that cannot be sold is a dubious value. Why have the Trust converted something that could be sold into something that cannot be sold.
Is it a notional US give away but what is it worth? It would take £100 investment to dilute the Trust to less than 5%.
It is easy to say now the promotion is very unlikely . It always was. Swansea have a track record of surprising pundits and their own fans.
Members have got side tracked with things like 'voting rights' and 'getting justice' instead of concentrating on one thing. CASH. |
I've told you - the board are clueless, they signed something they don't understand so don't have answers for the members.
Going to court to gain £21mill was the very epitome of concentrating on cash. | |
| |
| No court action? on 16:05 - Feb 16 with 1622 views | 3swan |
| No court action? on 14:39 - Feb 16 by builthjack |
I could never understand the outcome of the first vote, which was not to fight for justice. Every person I knew who was a trust member, at least 40, had voted to fight. Yet when the result came out it was the opposite. I said on here that I smelt a rat.
Then the second vote a few years later, the result was fight. But years down the line the trust board ran away like scared kids.
All quite disgusting. |
Whether there was a rat, I don't know but at the time of the first vote people I spoke to were willing to give one last chance of a sensible agreement. As time went on this became clear it wasn't going to happen so a vote for legal action was voted on. The latest board for their reasons have now ignored that mandate. |  | | |
| No court action? on 16:18 - Feb 16 with 1610 views | Badlands |
| No court action? on 14:39 - Feb 16 by builthjack |
I could never understand the outcome of the first vote, which was not to fight for justice. Every person I knew who was a trust member, at least 40, had voted to fight. Yet when the result came out it was the opposite. I said on here that I smelt a rat.
Then the second vote a few years later, the result was fight. But years down the line the trust board ran away like scared kids.
All quite disgusting. |
Most members were sane. Just because a lot of people you voted one way, or said they did, means nothing.
The outcome was always going to be the same … financial ruin for a Trust that has done nothing for fans, its members or the club for a decade.
The cost of any court action would have been horrendous and, probably once Silverstein had pointed out the real world situation i.e. the Trust's case would have only had traction against the selling shareholder not the consortium, the gamble would have failed. It looks like those prepared to offer assurances regarding the costs got cold feet.
As someone posted the action was a microcosm of brexit … the gullible fell for pie in the sky, it was always going to cause division, it was always going cost us and it was always doomed to fail. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 16:47 - Feb 16 with 1577 views | onehunglow |
| No court action? on 16:18 - Feb 16 by Badlands |
Most members were sane. Just because a lot of people you voted one way, or said they did, means nothing.
The outcome was always going to be the same … financial ruin for a Trust that has done nothing for fans, its members or the club for a decade.
The cost of any court action would have been horrendous and, probably once Silverstein had pointed out the real world situation i.e. the Trust's case would have only had traction against the selling shareholder not the consortium, the gamble would have failed. It looks like those prepared to offer assurances regarding the costs got cold feet.
As someone posted the action was a microcosm of brexit … the gullible fell for pie in the sky, it was always going to cause division, it was always going cost us and it was always doomed to fail. |
Couldn’t agree more.
Maybe some humble pie is forthcoming from those who ritually insulted those pointing outrage madness of court action. | |
| |
| No court action? on 17:01 - Feb 16 with 1559 views | BillyChong |
| No court action? on 16:18 - Feb 16 by Badlands |
Most members were sane. Just because a lot of people you voted one way, or said they did, means nothing.
The outcome was always going to be the same … financial ruin for a Trust that has done nothing for fans, its members or the club for a decade.
The cost of any court action would have been horrendous and, probably once Silverstein had pointed out the real world situation i.e. the Trust's case would have only had traction against the selling shareholder not the consortium, the gamble would have failed. It looks like those prepared to offer assurances regarding the costs got cold feet.
As someone posted the action was a microcosm of brexit … the gullible fell for pie in the sky, it was always going to cause division, it was always going cost us and it was always doomed to fail. |
After legal fees and other costs the Trust was still expected to have walked away with around £10m. A lot better than a £500k settlement. To sell for £10m they now need the club to be valued at £200m, the odds on that happening any time soon are slim to none. | | | |
| No court action? on 17:09 - Feb 16 with 1551 views | guthrieintherain |
| No court action? on 14:15 - Feb 16 by Whiterockin |
Out of principal though the current board members should receive a vote of no confidence what they have done stinks and in my opinion makes them as bad if not worse than the sellouts back in 2016.
This is along the lines of my thinking as well, the current trust board could end up as popular as the sell outs. But without the financial benefits, unless.......... |
In a nutshell totally agree. | |
| |
| No court action? on 17:20 - Feb 16 with 1506 views | Chief |
| No court action? on 16:18 - Feb 16 by Badlands |
Most members were sane. Just because a lot of people you voted one way, or said they did, means nothing.
The outcome was always going to be the same … financial ruin for a Trust that has done nothing for fans, its members or the club for a decade.
The cost of any court action would have been horrendous and, probably once Silverstein had pointed out the real world situation i.e. the Trust's case would have only had traction against the selling shareholder not the consortium, the gamble would have failed. It looks like those prepared to offer assurances regarding the costs got cold feet.
As someone posted the action was a microcosm of brexit … the gullible fell for pie in the sky, it was always going to cause division, it was always going cost us and it was always doomed to fail. |
Well it doesn't now, because those voters 80% who voted for legal action were betrayed by the board.
It wasn't always going to same though, that's just you being biased. An independent QC stated the case was strong case (over 70% probability of winning was stated yesterday). So yes a gamble, but one with good odds.
The trust board probably did get charmed by Silverstein and shat the bed.
Have you spoken to the sellouts / Americans since yesterday? You know those people who you definitely have no relationship with? | |
| |
| No court action? on 17:28 - Feb 16 with 1493 views | Boundy |
| No court action? on 14:17 - Feb 16 by Whiterockin |
So first you blame the previous trust board now you are blaming the membership. |
of which he's neither | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| No court action? on 18:06 - Feb 16 with 1458 views | max936 |
| No court action? on 14:39 - Feb 16 by builthjack |
I could never understand the outcome of the first vote, which was not to fight for justice. Every person I knew who was a trust member, at least 40, had voted to fight. Yet when the result came out it was the opposite. I said on here that I smelt a rat.
Then the second vote a few years later, the result was fight. But years down the line the trust board ran away like scared kids.
All quite disgusting. |
Spot on Builthy. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 18:26 - Feb 16 with 1442 views | OptimisticJack |
| No court action? on 14:39 - Feb 16 by builthjack |
I could never understand the outcome of the first vote, which was not to fight for justice. Every person I knew who was a trust member, at least 40, had voted to fight. Yet when the result came out it was the opposite. I said on here that I smelt a rat.
Then the second vote a few years later, the result was fight. But years down the line the trust board ran away like scared kids.
All quite disgusting. |
That was due to the letter sent out by Phil Sumbler ( the then chairman ) which leant towards advising members against taking legal action.
No doubt that letter had a major effect in the result of the ballot. | |
| |
| No court action? on 18:49 - Feb 16 with 1423 views | BillyChong |
| No court action? on 18:26 - Feb 16 by OptimisticJack |
That was due to the letter sent out by Phil Sumbler ( the then chairman ) which leant towards advising members against taking legal action.
No doubt that letter had a major effect in the result of the ballot. |
The trust were too naive and trusting at that point. For the new trust regime to commit such a howler years down the line knowing the current and past is unforgivable. | | | |
| No court action? on 00:33 - Feb 17 with 1306 views | AndyCole |
.
An utter shambles, from start to finish.
Lead by a shambolic 'B' team of chancers who prefer to tout their SM profile. To this day.
A proper shambles, and a proper shame on the proper amateur shamblers.
'B' teamers who to this day are twisting and turning and now deflecting.
Shame on the The 'trust', in so many ways.
. | |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| No court action? on 03:06 - Feb 17 with 1280 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| No court action? on 18:26 - Feb 16 by OptimisticJack |
That was due to the letter sent out by Phil Sumbler ( the then chairman ) which leant towards advising members against taking legal action.
No doubt that letter had a major effect in the result of the ballot. |
It had a huge impact.
People who didn’t know much about these matters simply went with the recommendation. It is essentially making a handful of peoples votes/views count for thousands. They get their own and all the floaters they tell/recommend to vote their way.
If that wasn’t enough, they constructed the vote in such a way where to go to court had to win multiple times where as to not only needed to win once.
It’s was very transparent that some wanted to have a legacy. £5m at the time to some may well have felt that when they haven’t been around the corporate world and those sums before, but in reality it was a pittance.
This board is no different, they have seen 500k and 5% and think it will be leaving their mark on the club, as a direct consequence of them. It’s pure ego.
Again the reality is it’s a pittance. Any former board members throwing these current board members under the bus need to be ashamed of themselves, they are all (most) culpable for this mess. Anyone who recommended or pushed to not go the legal route is to blame. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 07:44 - Feb 17 with 1232 views | waynekerr55 |
| No court action? on 14:17 - Feb 16 by Whiterockin |
So first you blame the previous trust board now you are blaming the membership. |
Resolven's point about the 25% would be moot if the previous owners hadn't enforced the shareholders agreement Mel Nurse's shares would have helped them reach that goal.
Why he feels the need to go in to bat for the previous owners only he can answer. |  |
| |
| No court action? on 09:07 - Feb 17 with 1172 views | Wingstandwood |
| No court action? on 00:33 - Feb 17 by AndyCole |
.
An utter shambles, from start to finish.
Lead by a shambolic 'B' team of chancers who prefer to tout their SM profile. To this day.
A proper shambles, and a proper shame on the proper amateur shamblers.
'B' teamers who to this day are twisting and turning and now deflecting.
Shame on the The 'trust', in so many ways.
. |
That deluded out of his depth exiled loser and weakling from Clase come WOKE man child is hilarious though!
Spent his entire life outside of the private sector and knew about as much about cooperate law and business as a two year old but thought he had the 'tools for the job'? Hilarious! He's ever so 'edgy' though! Would really intimate the boardroom big-boys and other big-boys elsewhere NOT. Even Dineen would crush him!
 |  |
| |
| No court action? on 09:54 - Feb 17 with 1107 views | Whiterockin |
Keith do you think this is the build up to Martin Morgan becoming the majority shareholder? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
