| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 137169 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:55 - Jun 30 with 2166 views | Smellyplumz |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:04 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
That's a very separate issue, which really ties back to the Huw Jenkins being Chairman comments. Legal action will relate to the Trust shareholding, not who runs , or who is employed by, the club. |
Can we not accept the deal then take out a private court case against HJ for breaking company law? I am in no a legal expert. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:10 - Jun 30 with 2129 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:55 - Jun 30 by Smellyplumz |
Can we not accept the deal then take out a private court case against HJ for breaking company law? I am in no a legal expert. |
Afraid not. Accepting this deal means legal action is off the table. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:24 - Jun 30 with 2105 views | majorraglan |
If the ultimate decision of the fans is to litigate against the new owners/previous share holders, then it is my belief that any case would be determined by the "balance of probabilities" which is a lower threshold than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required for criminal law, so that should be in the Trusts favour.
That said, If and it's a big if, the Trust initiated litigation against the new owners and were successful, is there any possibility that the Court could, when considering the award for damages deem that the current offer that's been made by the new owners a more than generous proposition and end up awarding less than is being offered now, or do they have to ensure the unfair prejudice against is made good? The reason I ask is I have read in the media about people who go to civil court (albeit not for this type of case), win their case but end up with less than they were offered at the outset because those terms were deemed reasonable? Maybe Uxbridge or Phil can provide some info around the issues in this paragraph.
I am appalled by the way the Trust were treated and I want that wrong to be addressed, but at the same time, I also see the advantages of working with the new owners and taking up the offer to ensure there is money in the bank for that (inevitable?) rainy day. The lawyers will always get paid no matter what, whilst I have a strong urge to see justice done and a wrong righted, I am also conscious of the pit falls that could lay ahead. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:35 - Jun 30 with 2083 views | MyFinalHeaven |
Assuming that the trust does sell part or all of its stake, what do they do with the money? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:47 - Jun 30 with 2055 views | Pegojack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:35 - Jun 30 by MyFinalHeaven |
Assuming that the trust does sell part or all of its stake, what do they do with the money? |
Put in the bank and earn interest on it. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:49 - Jun 30 with 2042 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:47 - Jun 30 by Pegojack |
Put in the bank and earn interest on it. |
Probably. However we do need to assess how the funds could be used. Nothing major would be done without consultation with the members of course. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:51 - Jun 30 with 2030 views | Pegojack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:18 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
Without an actual proposal it's impossible to say. All that is asked at this time is a commitment to think about it in the future. |
There is no way the Trust's funds should go towards stadium expansion. We are the only ones with the club's interests at heart and we need that money as our fallback against the 'rainy day'.
The yanks can fund it themselves if they're so keen, or ask Jenkins to fork out some of his ill gotten gains. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:54 - Jun 30 with 2024 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:24 - Jun 30 by majorraglan |
If the ultimate decision of the fans is to litigate against the new owners/previous share holders, then it is my belief that any case would be determined by the "balance of probabilities" which is a lower threshold than the "beyond reasonable doubt" required for criminal law, so that should be in the Trusts favour.
That said, If and it's a big if, the Trust initiated litigation against the new owners and were successful, is there any possibility that the Court could, when considering the award for damages deem that the current offer that's been made by the new owners a more than generous proposition and end up awarding less than is being offered now, or do they have to ensure the unfair prejudice against is made good? The reason I ask is I have read in the media about people who go to civil court (albeit not for this type of case), win their case but end up with less than they were offered at the outset because those terms were deemed reasonable? Maybe Uxbridge or Phil can provide some info around the issues in this paragraph.
I am appalled by the way the Trust were treated and I want that wrong to be addressed, but at the same time, I also see the advantages of working with the new owners and taking up the offer to ensure there is money in the bank for that (inevitable?) rainy day. The lawyers will always get paid no matter what, whilst I have a strong urge to see justice done and a wrong righted, I am also conscious of the pit falls that could lay ahead. |
A good question. My understanding is that it would not impact the award. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:54 - Jun 30 with 2022 views | Smellyplumz |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:10 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
Afraid not. Accepting this deal means legal action is off the table. |
yeah for the trust but a seperate group could persue action , after all he has broken the law. | |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:55 - Jun 30 with 2014 views | Smellyplumz |
He will always be a poison thorn in the side of the club,always. | |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:58 - Jun 30 with 2008 views | AngelRangelQS |
Why are people so concerned about Huw Jenkins etc.? They'll always be considered to be Judas scumbags by the majority of the fan base. I don't think we should go through a court battle that could take a very long time just to get a bit of revenge.
This should all be about safeguarding the future of the club. Let's get some cash in the bank, retain a shareholding and try and try and avoid another season of internal unrest.
£5m or whatever may not be enough for us to buy the club the way it stands today but in the future could be vital. If the worst happens and the shares are diluted and our shareholding evaporates to the square root of F all, then we'd at the very least have a bit of a war chest to help us put some "external pressure" on. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:59 - Jun 30 with 2004 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:54 - Jun 30 by Smellyplumz |
yeah for the trust but a seperate group could persue action , after all he has broken the law. |
Who are the separate group, and what could they sue him for?
Also need to be clear what you mean by breaking the law. If it's contractual, then it's the party who has been impacted that can sue. That's the Trust in this case. If it's criminal, then yes I would assume that any party could bring that to the attention of the authorities. The issue of the change of Articles not being sent to the Trust could come under that, although that's not just Jenkins personally. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:00 - Jun 30 with 1999 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:49 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
Probably. However we do need to assess how the funds could be used. Nothing major would be done without consultation with the members of course. |
It's more than a little bizarre that this many years into the Trudy's existence, there is still no clear understanding on what any money sword through dived or share sale can actually be used for. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:01 - Jun 30 with 1997 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:54 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
A good question. My understanding is that it would not impact the award. |
It may impact the ability to claim back legal costs (or part of them) if they do not beat in court the offer that was made previously. I think it may even render you liable for some of the other party's costs. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:02 - Jun 30 with 1990 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:51 - Jun 30 by Pegojack |
There is no way the Trust's funds should go towards stadium expansion. We are the only ones with the club's interests at heart and we need that money as our fallback against the 'rainy day'.
The yanks can fund it themselves if they're so keen, or ask Jenkins to fork out some of his ill gotten gains. |
Ha. I think it really does depend on the proposal. If it's set up to profit the other shareholders at the Trust's expense, then I can't see anyone going for it. It needs to be in the interests of the Members, without question. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:04 - Jun 30 with 1977 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:01 - Jun 30 by AngelRangelQS |
It may impact the ability to claim back legal costs (or part of them) if they do not beat in court the offer that was made previously. I think it may even render you liable for some of the other party's costs. |
As I understand it, court is an all or nothing scenario in terms of remedy. I don't think that's right.
As for costs, I'm not sure that's clear, but then if the Trust won that case, it'd be quids in either way. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:07 - Jun 30 with 1963 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:00 - Jun 30 by NeathJack |
It's more than a little bizarre that this many years into the Trudy's existence, there is still no clear understanding on what any money sword through dived or share sale can actually be used for. |
Why? It's not been an issue until recently - it is only in the last few years the Trust has had a pot to urinate into, ironically thanks to the divi payments. Until recently, the objective had always been to keep funds to purchase more shares if at all possible.
It's the detail below that. Can the Trust go out and buy a social club for example? It's unclear. Once clarified, I'd suggest we'd need to canvass the members also in terms of how to use any funds in the future. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:13 - Jun 30 with 1941 views | Nookiejack |
Given the Trust has not received a dividend since the takeover have the Yanks received any management fees since the takeover?
What's to stop the Yanks not a declaring a dividend in the future and taking their a part of their return out through managment fees.
They might use any management fees to fund purchase of 0.5% of Trust's stake each year? The Trust in the meantime does not receive an annual return on its remaining 16% stake? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:14 - Jun 30 with 1940 views | MyFinalHeaven |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:51 - Jun 30 by Pegojack |
There is no way the Trust's funds should go towards stadium expansion. We are the only ones with the club's interests at heart and we need that money as our fallback against the 'rainy day'.
The yanks can fund it themselves if they're so keen, or ask Jenkins to fork out some of his ill gotten gains. |
Yep. I find it absolutely outrageous that the owners have actually asked the trust to invest part of the funds from the share sale towards the stadium expansion. How fvcking greedy are they, and how fvcking stupid are we if we actually do that?
There is no way the majority shareholder shouldn't be the one financing the stadium expansion. And there is no way the money from the share sale--in the event that it happens--be reinvested in the club. Why in the world would we want to make the rich richer and help bolster their assets at our expense? They're the owners--it's on THEM to do all the investment, not us.
As you mentioned, the money should be saved for a rainy day. And as I have iterated before, I do not trust these Americans one bit, as they have made it crystal clear what they're intentions are: make money. That's all their in it for, and as a result, we can never be that hopeful or optimistic of our future so long as they're in charge. So long as they're at the helm there's every chance we're going to need that money one day to save our club.
Absolutely incredible how they have yet to invest a penny into this club but are asking the trust to reinvest proceeds from the planned share sale into the stadium expansion. Really puts into perspective the kind of blood sucking parasites we're dealing with. [Post edited 30 Jun 2017 13:16]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:18 - Jun 30 with 1912 views | Nookiejack |
Do we understand have the Yanks agreed to buyout the selling shareholders residual 11% shares (100% - 68% Yanks stake - 21% Trust stake) at some point in the future - based on certain performance criteria?
Or have the selling shareholders just got 'tag' rights as well and if yes have they conceded 'drag' rights to the Yanks? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:19 - Jun 30 with 1908 views | waynekerr55 |
Has anyone considered that Kaplan and Levein may have given Jenkins an ultimatum - pony up cash for the shares or you're out? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:20 - Jun 30 with 1906 views | Banosswan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:07 - Jun 30 by Uxbridge |
Why? It's not been an issue until recently - it is only in the last few years the Trust has had a pot to urinate into, ironically thanks to the divi payments. Until recently, the objective had always been to keep funds to purchase more shares if at all possible.
It's the detail below that. Can the Trust go out and buy a social club for example? It's unclear. Once clarified, I'd suggest we'd need to canvass the members also in terms of how to use any funds in the future. |
Social club and land for a pitch should a phoenix club be needed. |  |
| Ever since my son was... never conceived, because I've never had consensual sex without money involved... I've always kind of looked at you as... a thing, that I could live next to... in accordance with state laws. | | Poll: | How do you like your steak? |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:22 - Jun 30 with 1899 views | FerrieBodde |
If the Yanks and Jenkins have money to spend, why don't they invest it into the club (especially on players to ensure our PL survival) instead of trying to buy out the trust? Right group of c unts these blokes are. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:26 - Jun 30 with 1891 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:13 - Jun 30 by Nookiejack |
Given the Trust has not received a dividend since the takeover have the Yanks received any management fees since the takeover?
What's to stop the Yanks not a declaring a dividend in the future and taking their a part of their return out through managment fees.
They might use any management fees to fund purchase of 0.5% of Trust's stake each year? The Trust in the meantime does not receive an annual return on its remaining 16% stake? |
They haven't to date. Acting unfairly against a minority shareholder in so blatant a fashion in doing so would be unwise and bring the legal aspects back into play. I would suggest you are dealing with theoreticals though. Some people theorising last week were saying the Trust stake was worthless. That's not proven to be accurate.
On a general note, the Trust going forward will need to remain vigilant to ensure the more recent relationships are adhered to, and included within agreement where practical. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:27 - Jun 30 with 1888 views | Highjack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:51 - Jun 30 by Pegojack |
There is no way the Trust's funds should go towards stadium expansion. We are the only ones with the club's interests at heart and we need that money as our fallback against the 'rainy day'.
The yanks can fund it themselves if they're so keen, or ask Jenkins to fork out some of his ill gotten gains. |
Depends what the trust gets out of it. If they had even a small percentage back off 20000+ season ticket holders paying £4-500 every year it would eclipse the 5 mill they'd be sitting on eventually. Obviously the down side would be they'd probably have to chip in for maintenance etc but that's a debate for a different day. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
