| Building Bridges on 23:19 - Feb 18 with 1401 views | monmouth |
| Building Bridges on 23:12 - Feb 18 by xmastree |
Attempt to point score. Of come on !. I just asked you who are the alledged criminals. You didnt answer so i checked companies house via the link given and gave my thoughts.
Ux said a criminal offence. The offence being ? |
The Companies Act is a statute. |  |
|  |
| Building Bridges on 23:49 - Feb 18 with 1372 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I know little regarding legal matters, however surely posting all this stuff on a public forum is very silly when there is the real likelihood of criminal and/or civil cases being brought against you in the near future over this matter.
It sounds as if you and your lawyer feel you are in the clear. I sincerely hope he/she is wrong and you are financially ruined once the inevitable legal battles are over. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 02:26 - Feb 19 with 1318 views | Smellyplumz |
| Building Bridges on 21:43 - Feb 18 by morningstar |
What would be your ideal scenario and conclusion to it? |
Jenkins to come down with a life long case of severe hemorrhoids and impotence would be a good start, what you think? |  |
|
""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 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 08:07 - Feb 19 with 1278 views | waynekerr55 |
| Building Bridges on 22:32 - Feb 18 by xmastree |
None of your comments have been close to the bone. You dont know me and i have no interest in knowing you so dont worry yourself in that respect. |
With that in mind, would you be as kind as to answer the questions?  |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 08:43 - Feb 19 with 1253 views | Nookiejack |
| Building Bridges on 18:18 - Feb 18 by xmastree |
exactly but no one has said who it might be. If its to go after the sellers then its rubbish to be honest. Once again people just spouting off without thinking.
The articles in question are to do with swansea city 2002 ltd not the club. The change was lodged on the 4th august. At that date only levien, kaplan and jenkins were directors. It used to be jenkins and katzen but katzen had resigned prior to the change. After the change martin morgan was appointed so good luck to pc plod trying to arrest levien and kaplan. They will have more luck with jenkins however. |
You may not have looked closely at Companies House (AT WORST YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION)
From Companies House the new articles were 'lodged' on the 4th August.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/MHogB2AawWIwdRf
However if you take a closer look they were 'adopted by special resolution passed on 21st July 2016'. So the special resolution must have been signed on 21st July 2016 and lodged with Companied House on 4th August 16.
All the 'selling' shareholders except the Trust signed up to changing the articles. (Swansea LLC, the Yanks Holding Company is not a party to changing the articles).
The sale also went through on 21st July 1026.
This means the selling shareholders (except the Trust) changed the articles (in considerable favour of the Yanks) immediately before the sale. The Yanks would not have acquired the company without the articles being changed in their favour prior to the sale.
If they did not give notice to the Trust of a special resolution to change the Articles and if that is a criminal offence in company law - then the selling shareholders have committed a criminal offence.
If it is only a civil offence not to have given notice - then they have committed a civil offence.
DIrectors also have a duty to 'obey' the company's constitution. If they have not given notice to the Trust of a resolution to change the articles they have not fulfilled that duty. Hence criminal and/or civil actions can be taken against Huw Jenkins and other directors. |  | | |
| Building Bridges on 08:53 - Feb 19 with 1240 views | monmouth |
| Building Bridges on 08:43 - Feb 19 by Nookiejack |
You may not have looked closely at Companies House (AT WORST YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION)
From Companies House the new articles were 'lodged' on the 4th August.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/MHogB2AawWIwdRf
However if you take a closer look they were 'adopted by special resolution passed on 21st July 2016'. So the special resolution must have been signed on 21st July 2016 and lodged with Companied House on 4th August 16.
All the 'selling' shareholders except the Trust signed up to changing the articles. (Swansea LLC, the Yanks Holding Company is not a party to changing the articles).
The sale also went through on 21st July 1026.
This means the selling shareholders (except the Trust) changed the articles (in considerable favour of the Yanks) immediately before the sale. The Yanks would not have acquired the company without the articles being changed in their favour prior to the sale.
If they did not give notice to the Trust of a special resolution to change the Articles and if that is a criminal offence in company law - then the selling shareholders have committed a criminal offence.
If it is only a civil offence not to have given notice - then they have committed a civil offence.
DIrectors also have a duty to 'obey' the company's constitution. If they have not given notice to the Trust of a resolution to change the articles they have not fulfilled that duty. Hence criminal and/or civil actions can be taken against Huw Jenkins and other directors. |
Yep, they all signed it. I remember now. Good job Nookie! | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 10:05 - Feb 19 with 1199 views | xmastree |
| Building Bridges on 08:43 - Feb 19 by Nookiejack |
You may not have looked closely at Companies House (AT WORST YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION)
From Companies House the new articles were 'lodged' on the 4th August.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/MHogB2AawWIwdRf
However if you take a closer look they were 'adopted by special resolution passed on 21st July 2016'. So the special resolution must have been signed on 21st July 2016 and lodged with Companied House on 4th August 16.
All the 'selling' shareholders except the Trust signed up to changing the articles. (Swansea LLC, the Yanks Holding Company is not a party to changing the articles).
The sale also went through on 21st July 1026.
This means the selling shareholders (except the Trust) changed the articles (in considerable favour of the Yanks) immediately before the sale. The Yanks would not have acquired the company without the articles being changed in their favour prior to the sale.
If they did not give notice to the Trust of a special resolution to change the Articles and if that is a criminal offence in company law - then the selling shareholders have committed a criminal offence.
If it is only a civil offence not to have given notice - then they have committed a civil offence.
DIrectors also have a duty to 'obey' the company's constitution. If they have not given notice to the Trust of a resolution to change the articles they have not fulfilled that duty. Hence criminal and/or civil actions can be taken against Huw Jenkins and other directors. |
I haven't spread any misinformation. I merely quoted dates as to when the articles were filed and who were directors at the time. As i said previously i hadn't read them so didn't know when the new ones were adopted.
I cant comment as to whether an offence has taken place as 1. I dont know the ins and outs and 2. If i did im not qualified to do so.
All ive asked in this thread is who were directors when it was done. If it is civil then it will be down to the directors i presume of which there were 2. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 10:10 - Feb 19 with 1194 views | xmastree |
| Building Bridges on 08:07 - Feb 19 by waynekerr55 |
With that in mind, would you be as kind as to answer the questions? |
Certainly. I don't know is the simple answer. I haven't had any indepth conversations with any of them as they arent that close ' buddies ' more acquaintances over the years. In fact i haven' t seen some of them since the sale. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Building Bridges on 10:15 - Feb 19 with 1189 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 10:05 - Feb 19 by xmastree |
I haven't spread any misinformation. I merely quoted dates as to when the articles were filed and who were directors at the time. As i said previously i hadn't read them so didn't know when the new ones were adopted.
I cant comment as to whether an offence has taken place as 1. I dont know the ins and outs and 2. If i did im not qualified to do so.
All ive asked in this thread is who were directors when it was done. If it is civil then it will be down to the directors i presume of which there were 2. |
In criminal matters others can become complicit in conspiring whether directors or not. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 10:25 - Feb 19 with 1175 views | xmastree |
| Building Bridges on 10:15 - Feb 19 by Loyal |
In criminal matters others can become complicit in conspiring whether directors or not. |
Im sure they can thats why i said civil in the case of directors. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 10:26 - Feb 19 with 1949 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 10:25 - Feb 19 by xmastree |
Im sure they can thats why i said civil in the case of directors. |
It's both, accept it mate. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 10:30 - Feb 19 with 1943 views | xmastree |
| Building Bridges on 10:26 - Feb 19 by Loyal |
It's both, accept it mate. |
If you say so. Im no lawyer so let them do what ever it is they are going to do. No need for the old bill until then 😂 | | | |
| Building Bridges on 12:23 - Feb 19 with 1881 views | perchrockjack |
Fun?
Ff so
Fair play
Speechless
Nob | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:55 - Feb 19 with 1864 views | waynekerr55 |
| Building Bridges on 10:10 - Feb 19 by xmastree |
Certainly. I don't know is the simple answer. I haven't had any indepth conversations with any of them as they arent that close ' buddies ' more acquaintances over the years. In fact i haven' t seen some of them since the sale. |
Thanks ðŸ‘
Apologies, but as you know I like to repeat myself... This answer makes your staunch defence of their actions in the "what have the Romans done for us thread" seem odd (IMO of course). | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 13:05 - Feb 19 with 1852 views | perchrockjack |
Carry on wAyne
Wisdom is always worth repeating
I do it all the time | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 13:11 - Feb 19 with 1840 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 10:30 - Feb 19 by xmastree |
If you say so. Im no lawyer so let them do what ever it is they are going to do. No need for the old bill until then 😂 |
You seem very aware of the old bill. And very keen to reassure yourself that they won't be involved. I'm just going with the legal advice from qualified law practitioners as repeated by Uxbridge. You can believe what you want.
Me ?
I've nothing to be concerned about.
Have a super Sunday 👠| |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 14:09 - Feb 19 with 1807 views | morningstar |
| Building Bridges on 12:23 - Feb 19 by perchrockjack |
Fun?
Ff so
Fair play
Speechless
Nob |
Knew you'd see the funny side Rich. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:12 - Feb 19 with 1750 views | perchrockjack |
I'm omnipotent Gary
Look out
Bridges have been know to collapse | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 22:20 - Feb 19 with 1678 views | TheResurrection |
This is becoming oh so like it always has been with the Trust...
We all want a cohesive, functioning and efficient way to co-exist with the present owners, or any owners for that matter, but "building bridges"? And acclaiming that to the world like the cat who's got the cream is an extremely worrying development.
Does any Swans fan, sorry, let me try again,. does any Swans fan apart from Neath Jack actually believe the American owners haven't got exactly what they need?
And like with Huw Cooze beforehand, they've got us exactly where they want us.
The Trust, it seems, are enjoying the new relationship a bit too much. The US owners fronted by the charming Pearlman are able to throw them the odd bone so the Trust are able to proclaim some minor victories and alternately one of them plus family gets the VIP treatment in the Directors Box...
Oh, and they are also kept in the loop about potential new signings and all of a sudden we, the real fans, are left with more sitting duck patsy's when what we really need is some guts and teeth and a respectful arms length relationship, which would genuinely be of true benefit for the supporters of the City's football club.
We've been here before and whilst we've had some notable sacrificial lambs we are still largely left wth the same old regime.
Is it 9 of the 12 that are still there that were there through the debacle of the last few years?
I like Phil and Stu, I have met with them and they are good guys, intelligent too who can both hold a good conversation, so I am not on a witch hunt here but I would have really liked to have seen some tangible change by now and not least some progress with action against the disgusting behaviour of the selling shareholders and the resulting scenario.
They have been lulled into yet another false sense of security and sucked in by the American psychobabble and all I can say is shame on you.
Let's face it, we are never going to see genuine change with the present Trust Board, we've just got to get bloody used to it. [Post edited 19 Feb 2017 22:53]
|  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 09:07 - Feb 20 with 1608 views | Nookiejack |
| Building Bridges on 22:20 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
This is becoming oh so like it always has been with the Trust...
We all want a cohesive, functioning and efficient way to co-exist with the present owners, or any owners for that matter, but "building bridges"? And acclaiming that to the world like the cat who's got the cream is an extremely worrying development.
Does any Swans fan, sorry, let me try again,. does any Swans fan apart from Neath Jack actually believe the American owners haven't got exactly what they need?
And like with Huw Cooze beforehand, they've got us exactly where they want us.
The Trust, it seems, are enjoying the new relationship a bit too much. The US owners fronted by the charming Pearlman are able to throw them the odd bone so the Trust are able to proclaim some minor victories and alternately one of them plus family gets the VIP treatment in the Directors Box...
Oh, and they are also kept in the loop about potential new signings and all of a sudden we, the real fans, are left with more sitting duck patsy's when what we really need is some guts and teeth and a respectful arms length relationship, which would genuinely be of true benefit for the supporters of the City's football club.
We've been here before and whilst we've had some notable sacrificial lambs we are still largely left wth the same old regime.
Is it 9 of the 12 that are still there that were there through the debacle of the last few years?
I like Phil and Stu, I have met with them and they are good guys, intelligent too who can both hold a good conversation, so I am not on a witch hunt here but I would have really liked to have seen some tangible change by now and not least some progress with action against the disgusting behaviour of the selling shareholders and the resulting scenario.
They have been lulled into yet another false sense of security and sucked in by the American psychobabble and all I can say is shame on you.
Let's face it, we are never going to see genuine change with the present Trust Board, we've just got to get bloody used to it. [Post edited 19 Feb 2017 22:53]
|
Yes Director's box tickets home and away.
......that's what seems important- don't worry about £20m at stake. If Trust lost the tickets in the Director' box (home and away) legal action would be started immediately. Should also add that to the mission statement of the Trust protecting Director's box tickets home and way.
Sorry for sounding flippant but that's what seems important to the Trust (and very alarming)- when statements like building bridges are released.
Time for building bridges is when Trust has won the legal action and protected the £20m at stake -that's what it is set up to do. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 09:14 - Feb 20 with 1597 views | perchrockjack |
Chris
Serious question, as they say
Just where the feck do we go from here and whom can be trust with rectifying matters
What is the future ,as it seems now .. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 09:55 - Feb 20 with 1570 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 09:07 - Feb 20 by Nookiejack |
Yes Director's box tickets home and away.
......that's what seems important- don't worry about £20m at stake. If Trust lost the tickets in the Director' box (home and away) legal action would be started immediately. Should also add that to the mission statement of the Trust protecting Director's box tickets home and way.
Sorry for sounding flippant but that's what seems important to the Trust (and very alarming)- when statements like building bridges are released.
Time for building bridges is when Trust has won the legal action and protected the £20m at stake -that's what it is set up to do. |
You are right, as is Chris, it's about integrity, his point regards the free seats could be a penny chew stolen or £20 million to me. It's a lack of transparency. No matter the subject.
We still await the pathway of legal action, when and how etc ...
Not until then will we know the actual mindset of the trust.
It seems to be unknown at the moment, my concern is their desire to cozy up to the villains of the piece, as if we will conveniently forget. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:28 - Feb 20 with 1514 views | swancity |
| Building Bridges on 22:20 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
This is becoming oh so like it always has been with the Trust...
We all want a cohesive, functioning and efficient way to co-exist with the present owners, or any owners for that matter, but "building bridges"? And acclaiming that to the world like the cat who's got the cream is an extremely worrying development.
Does any Swans fan, sorry, let me try again,. does any Swans fan apart from Neath Jack actually believe the American owners haven't got exactly what they need?
And like with Huw Cooze beforehand, they've got us exactly where they want us.
The Trust, it seems, are enjoying the new relationship a bit too much. The US owners fronted by the charming Pearlman are able to throw them the odd bone so the Trust are able to proclaim some minor victories and alternately one of them plus family gets the VIP treatment in the Directors Box...
Oh, and they are also kept in the loop about potential new signings and all of a sudden we, the real fans, are left with more sitting duck patsy's when what we really need is some guts and teeth and a respectful arms length relationship, which would genuinely be of true benefit for the supporters of the City's football club.
We've been here before and whilst we've had some notable sacrificial lambs we are still largely left wth the same old regime.
Is it 9 of the 12 that are still there that were there through the debacle of the last few years?
I like Phil and Stu, I have met with them and they are good guys, intelligent too who can both hold a good conversation, so I am not on a witch hunt here but I would have really liked to have seen some tangible change by now and not least some progress with action against the disgusting behaviour of the selling shareholders and the resulting scenario.
They have been lulled into yet another false sense of security and sucked in by the American psychobabble and all I can say is shame on you.
Let's face it, we are never going to see genuine change with the present Trust Board, we've just got to get bloody used to it. [Post edited 19 Feb 2017 22:53]
|
If the Trust don't take action against the previous and possibly current owners then I'm sorry to say their days are numbered. Have they got the stomach for a fight? I don't think so from what I've seen.
I really hope to be proved wrong and that their legal advice enables them to take on the greedy despicable fuc kwits. Phil S seems to be an honourable man who has worked hard for what he believes in and I'm sure he feels betrayed by many. That's being the case it's time now for him to show that he has the balls for a battle. It's not time to be making best buddies with the very people who have shafted you behind your back. Go with it and you will notice a surge of support for yourself and the Trust. Do nothing, sit back and just go with the flow and you will have lost everything including your reputation.
As things stand now, the Trust has no future. Do something positive and constructive and you can change that perception. Got for it, win or lose: fight the fight and don't let them treat you like a doormat as that's what's happening now. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:58 - Feb 20 with 1487 views | TheResurrection |
| Building Bridges on 09:14 - Feb 20 by perchrockjack |
Chris
Serious question, as they say
Just where the feck do we go from here and whom can be trust with rectifying matters
What is the future ,as it seems now .. |
The Trust needs a shake up but a proper one and not the token gesture we've been appeased with.
You can feel the bitterness in people's written voices on here and this all stems from the terrible mistakes of the last few years.
Well the same people are still there doing the same things now.... Building bridges!!!?
Most fans don't know who the Trust Board consists of, even though most of them have been on there the whole time the Trust has existed. The ones we do know have made it like their own little boys club.
In the past elections have come and gone and nobody has cared, who was up for them, why and how they even knew about them. Thus elections have been nothing more than a farce.
But when the leaders of the little boys club wanted someone in particular they just co-opted them.
They have made it very personal to just a few and let's face it they haven't had the results to justify how much of a closed operation it's been.
Of course the usual suspects will argue some of these points and on technicalities they'd have some grounds, but in reality and looking at the big picture the way I've described it is very apt.
So what needs to happen, in my opinion, is for real change to be enforced.
And the present lot need to make it happen.
They need to put the Trust on the map, make sure the Trust are asked for their opinion on everything, be loud and proud; they should adopt a formula for more fans, a select few but more than the same old 12 every year, every time to make decisions or at least provide evidence that these fans' views have been canvassed; then they need to advertise for their positions and revitalise the whole operation.
We shouldn't be afraid of change, we should be afraid of standing still as we have been looking on from the sidelines for too long.
It's time to make things happen and nip the cosying up that's happening all over again in the bud.
These aren't drastic changes, they just need a little impetus to make things happen. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:58 - Feb 20 with 1487 views | NeathJack |
| Building Bridges on 22:20 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
This is becoming oh so like it always has been with the Trust...
We all want a cohesive, functioning and efficient way to co-exist with the present owners, or any owners for that matter, but "building bridges"? And acclaiming that to the world like the cat who's got the cream is an extremely worrying development.
Does any Swans fan, sorry, let me try again,. does any Swans fan apart from Neath Jack actually believe the American owners haven't got exactly what they need?
And like with Huw Cooze beforehand, they've got us exactly where they want us.
The Trust, it seems, are enjoying the new relationship a bit too much. The US owners fronted by the charming Pearlman are able to throw them the odd bone so the Trust are able to proclaim some minor victories and alternately one of them plus family gets the VIP treatment in the Directors Box...
Oh, and they are also kept in the loop about potential new signings and all of a sudden we, the real fans, are left with more sitting duck patsy's when what we really need is some guts and teeth and a respectful arms length relationship, which would genuinely be of true benefit for the supporters of the City's football club.
We've been here before and whilst we've had some notable sacrificial lambs we are still largely left wth the same old regime.
Is it 9 of the 12 that are still there that were there through the debacle of the last few years?
I like Phil and Stu, I have met with them and they are good guys, intelligent too who can both hold a good conversation, so I am not on a witch hunt here but I would have really liked to have seen some tangible change by now and not least some progress with action against the disgusting behaviour of the selling shareholders and the resulting scenario.
They have been lulled into yet another false sense of security and sucked in by the American psychobabble and all I can say is shame on you.
Let's face it, we are never going to see genuine change with the present Trust Board, we've just got to get bloody used to it. [Post edited 19 Feb 2017 22:53]
|
"Does any Swans fan, sorry, let me try again,. does any Swans fan apart from Neath Jack actually believe the American owners haven't got exactly what they need? "
Excuse me, what? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
