| Hello the Trust 11:13 - Jul 19 with 8323 views | DafyddHuw |
I sent you the following question last week, and although you say you'll repond within 48 hrs, I'm still waiting.
So I'll try to get your attention on here -
The candidates for election to the Trust board - how do I find out what their ttitude are to the deal/litigate situation?
I don'r care if they speak Welsh, are MDs of companies or have supporteed the Swans since they were foetuses. But I do want to know what their attitude to our owners is.
Surely in any other type of election we'd have some concept of what candidates stood for. How can I vote for someone when I know feck all about their attitude to the club?
|  | | |  |
| Hello the Trust on 11:17 - Jul 19 with 3377 views | Smellyplumz |
Good question, is something I'd like to know too. |  |
|
""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 |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 11:37 - Jul 19 with 3336 views | costalotta |
Good questions but I suspect you probably know the answer for the majority of those running. You've read the they've put out, their recommendations etc. That should tell you what you need to know about them. You've could , and again I suspect you probably have...read between the lines. It's all so predictable... |  | | |
| Hello the Trust on 11:40 - Jul 19 with 3326 views | union_jack |
| Hello the Trust on 11:37 - Jul 19 by costalotta |
Good questions but I suspect you probably know the answer for the majority of those running. You've read the they've put out, their recommendations etc. That should tell you what you need to know about them. You've could , and again I suspect you probably have...read between the lines. It's all so predictable... |
But hey, some of them speak Welsh. That's go to mean something?
Some of you people want everything! |  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 11:42 - Jul 19 with 3322 views | swancity |
Good question. But you won't get an honest reply. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 11:46 - Jul 19 with 3308 views | costalotta |
Yeah it does. It means that they can converse with about 10% of the population of Wales for whatever the p h u c k that is worth and how it will make them much better representatives of ththe fans. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 11:56 - Jul 19 with 3286 views | Uxbridge |
Out of interest, why on earth would you think it was the Trust's responsibility to dictate what is in the candidate statements, or go out and find answers for you on your particular questions? Does the Electoral commission set out what has to be included in MP candidates leaflets? Your question makes no sense.
Someone should have answered it I agree, assuming you sent it to via the Trust Contact Us form on the website, not in some post on here.
I've got a pretty simplistic view on this. There's nothing compelling a Trust member to a) vote at all or b) vote for 6 people - you could vote just for 1 if you so choose.
If it was me, if someone's pitch didn't meet the requirements I set out to vote for them, then I wouldn't vote for them. Simple really.
If you want to ask anyone standing who also posts on here for their view then that's up to them if they answer. You can judge their answer or silence as you so wish.
Seeing as you asked, I'll be voting in favour of the offer. Can't say I'm a fan of the offer but it's the better of the three alternatives. I don't trust the Americans but , to be blunt, they're over here and they own the majority of the shareholding. They ain't going anywhere. The decision is either to work with them or not. I choose the former, rightly or wrongly. I wouldn't vote for me if that's a problem for you, and that's fine by me. People should vote for who they want to take things forward. |  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 12:08 - Jul 19 with 3242 views | costalotta |
Perhaps one of them should com up with something like this...
I hold this club so close to my heart and that it's best interests are above those of any individual stakeholders. With this in mind...
1. I do not want litigation as IMO it's not in the best interests of the club, long term. But I think a better deal can be achieved.
2. I would canvas and push for the removal of the sell outs. This would be difficult to achieve but not impossible and should be a priority.
3. Maintain and continue to improve the relatianship with the new owners.
4. Improve Trust comms and increase membership year on year with a very plan and targets.
5. Look at the Trust in the community and ways in which closer links with other organisations can be created in order to grow the channels in which we can spread the word.
6. The viability of a Trust owned bar should be explored.
7. To explore with determination (not just lip service) the possibility of safe standing.
8. I do not speak Welsh.
9. Push for the procurement of the Liberty.
10. Review and likely recommend maximum term for All Trust board members, this would be a priority. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 12:16 - Jul 19 with 3226 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 11:56 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
Out of interest, why on earth would you think it was the Trust's responsibility to dictate what is in the candidate statements, or go out and find answers for you on your particular questions? Does the Electoral commission set out what has to be included in MP candidates leaflets? Your question makes no sense.
Someone should have answered it I agree, assuming you sent it to via the Trust Contact Us form on the website, not in some post on here.
I've got a pretty simplistic view on this. There's nothing compelling a Trust member to a) vote at all or b) vote for 6 people - you could vote just for 1 if you so choose.
If it was me, if someone's pitch didn't meet the requirements I set out to vote for them, then I wouldn't vote for them. Simple really.
If you want to ask anyone standing who also posts on here for their view then that's up to them if they answer. You can judge their answer or silence as you so wish.
Seeing as you asked, I'll be voting in favour of the offer. Can't say I'm a fan of the offer but it's the better of the three alternatives. I don't trust the Americans but , to be blunt, they're over here and they own the majority of the shareholding. They ain't going anywhere. The decision is either to work with them or not. I choose the former, rightly or wrongly. I wouldn't vote for me if that's a problem for you, and that's fine by me. People should vote for who they want to take things forward. |
The decision isnt "to work with them or not" that is wholly misleading.
The decisions is to take their measly offer which achieves no long term goals of either The Trust or the supporter what so ever, rendering it to its most powerless it has ever been and killing any realistic chance of ever being able to have a meaningful say in the club ever again.
Or
Trust the advice of the people the Trust has spent tens of thousands of pounds seeking, that we have a good case to fight the sham of a takeover where the remedy is we get £21m, which will almost guarantee a club takeover at some point in the future, or indeed a scenario where we can buy back onto the board. In the event (not as likely) that we lose the case, nothing really changes and we stay as we were. No voice and meaningless shares.
But the above wont be pointed out in the Trust pack of course as the ones writing like having their feet cosily under the table. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hello the Trust on 12:20 - Jul 19 with 3205 views | union_jack |
| Hello the Trust on 11:46 - Jul 19 by costalotta |
Yeah it does. It means that they can converse with about 10% of the population of Wales for whatever the p h u c k that is worth and how it will make them much better representatives of ththe fans. |
Oh yeah. Sorry!
 | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 12:23 - Jul 19 with 3192 views | costalotta |
| Hello the Trust on 12:16 - Jul 19 by E20Jack |
The decision isnt "to work with them or not" that is wholly misleading.
The decisions is to take their measly offer which achieves no long term goals of either The Trust or the supporter what so ever, rendering it to its most powerless it has ever been and killing any realistic chance of ever being able to have a meaningful say in the club ever again.
Or
Trust the advice of the people the Trust has spent tens of thousands of pounds seeking, that we have a good case to fight the sham of a takeover where the remedy is we get £21m, which will almost guarantee a club takeover at some point in the future, or indeed a scenario where we can buy back onto the board. In the event (not as likely) that we lose the case, nothing really changes and we stay as we were. No voice and meaningless shares.
But the above wont be pointed out in the Trust pack of course as the ones writing like having their feet cosily under the table. |
I agree with the sentiment here but not with the outcome wher you say that 21m guarantees a takeover in the future. Or whatever you meant by that. If that day comes then it won't be good and judging by the performance of the Trust, the defections in the early days to the mismanagement and short sightedness of recent times I'm not Trust in its current setup has the nous nor the ability to achieve that. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 13:07 - Jul 19 with 3112 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 12:16 - Jul 19 by E20Jack |
The decision isnt "to work with them or not" that is wholly misleading.
The decisions is to take their measly offer which achieves no long term goals of either The Trust or the supporter what so ever, rendering it to its most powerless it has ever been and killing any realistic chance of ever being able to have a meaningful say in the club ever again.
Or
Trust the advice of the people the Trust has spent tens of thousands of pounds seeking, that we have a good case to fight the sham of a takeover where the remedy is we get £21m, which will almost guarantee a club takeover at some point in the future, or indeed a scenario where we can buy back onto the board. In the event (not as likely) that we lose the case, nothing really changes and we stay as we were. No voice and meaningless shares.
But the above wont be pointed out in the Trust pack of course as the ones writing like having their feet cosily under the table. |
Well, that's your take on it. Other interpretations are of course available.
As for the people writing the pack, their continued involvement depends on the members. Could very easily be out of there in a couple of weeks anyway. Snide remarks regarding their motives do you no credit IMO. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 13:20 - Jul 19 with 3077 views | Smellyplumz |
| Hello the Trust on 11:56 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
Out of interest, why on earth would you think it was the Trust's responsibility to dictate what is in the candidate statements, or go out and find answers for you on your particular questions? Does the Electoral commission set out what has to be included in MP candidates leaflets? Your question makes no sense.
Someone should have answered it I agree, assuming you sent it to via the Trust Contact Us form on the website, not in some post on here.
I've got a pretty simplistic view on this. There's nothing compelling a Trust member to a) vote at all or b) vote for 6 people - you could vote just for 1 if you so choose.
If it was me, if someone's pitch didn't meet the requirements I set out to vote for them, then I wouldn't vote for them. Simple really.
If you want to ask anyone standing who also posts on here for their view then that's up to them if they answer. You can judge their answer or silence as you so wish.
Seeing as you asked, I'll be voting in favour of the offer. Can't say I'm a fan of the offer but it's the better of the three alternatives. I don't trust the Americans but , to be blunt, they're over here and they own the majority of the shareholding. They ain't going anywhere. The decision is either to work with them or not. I choose the former, rightly or wrongly. I wouldn't vote for me if that's a problem for you, and that's fine by me. People should vote for who they want to take things forward. |
This ain't personal because I don't know you from Adam but the sooner your off the trust the better. | |
|
""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 |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 13:24 - Jul 19 with 3067 views | DafyddHuw |
| Hello the Trust on 11:56 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
Out of interest, why on earth would you think it was the Trust's responsibility to dictate what is in the candidate statements, or go out and find answers for you on your particular questions? Does the Electoral commission set out what has to be included in MP candidates leaflets? Your question makes no sense.
Someone should have answered it I agree, assuming you sent it to via the Trust Contact Us form on the website, not in some post on here.
I've got a pretty simplistic view on this. There's nothing compelling a Trust member to a) vote at all or b) vote for 6 people - you could vote just for 1 if you so choose.
If it was me, if someone's pitch didn't meet the requirements I set out to vote for them, then I wouldn't vote for them. Simple really.
If you want to ask anyone standing who also posts on here for their view then that's up to them if they answer. You can judge their answer or silence as you so wish.
Seeing as you asked, I'll be voting in favour of the offer. Can't say I'm a fan of the offer but it's the better of the three alternatives. I don't trust the Americans but , to be blunt, they're over here and they own the majority of the shareholding. They ain't going anywhere. The decision is either to work with them or not. I choose the former, rightly or wrongly. I wouldn't vote for me if that's a problem for you, and that's fine by me. People should vote for who they want to take things forward. |
Firstly, yes I did ask my question via the "Contact Us" on the Trust website.
Secondly, please don't quote Electoral Commision at me. In a proper election, the candidates would lay out their philosophies. None of the candidates here have done this.
I don't see how the Trusr can simply wash their hands of the election process. Surely part of the candidates' "manifesto" should be to tell us how they see their attitude to the Yanks.
If the trust can't organise this, then surely the Trust should make the candidates contact details available so we can ask them individually.
At present, every candidate's staement is so anodine, they're really telling us nothing at all. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 13:30 - Jul 19 with 3060 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 13:24 - Jul 19 by DafyddHuw |
Firstly, yes I did ask my question via the "Contact Us" on the Trust website.
Secondly, please don't quote Electoral Commision at me. In a proper election, the candidates would lay out their philosophies. None of the candidates here have done this.
I don't see how the Trusr can simply wash their hands of the election process. Surely part of the candidates' "manifesto" should be to tell us how they see their attitude to the Yanks.
If the trust can't organise this, then surely the Trust should make the candidates contact details available so we can ask them individually.
At present, every candidate's staement is so anodine, they're really telling us nothing at all. |
That's not something the Trust could do unilaterally, at least after the fact. It would need the candidate's approval. Maybe one for next year's election. It's not a bad idea as it goes. I wouldn't have a problem with it anyway.
I stand by what I said though. The Trust can't determine the quality or content of the statements. The submissions are totally at the discretion of those standing. If they're not up to scratch then don't vote for them. I sort of agree with you to a point, at least in terms of commenting on the deal and actions going forward. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 15:41 - Jul 19 with 2953 views | Dafydd |
I have followed the activities of the Trust and its relationship with the football club for many years and I have no wish to enter into any debates or arguments with anyone, but for what its worth, here are my views-
I blame ALL current and past Trust committee members for being partly responsible for the mess we are now in. We have been let down by them as well as the Jenkins gang.
Some current members of the Committee, through their regular contributions to this Forum appear to have a high opinion of themselves, bordering on arrogance.
Most statements by candidates are poorly presented.
Personally, I have only used two of my votes - the stable needs clearing out.
There is something not quite right about the taxation situation of the Trust.
Lastly, I shall not be renewing my membership of the Trust for the coming year. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 16:36 - Jul 19 with 2851 views | Flashberryjack |
| Hello the Trust on 12:16 - Jul 19 by E20Jack |
The decision isnt "to work with them or not" that is wholly misleading.
The decisions is to take their measly offer which achieves no long term goals of either The Trust or the supporter what so ever, rendering it to its most powerless it has ever been and killing any realistic chance of ever being able to have a meaningful say in the club ever again.
Or
Trust the advice of the people the Trust has spent tens of thousands of pounds seeking, that we have a good case to fight the sham of a takeover where the remedy is we get £21m, which will almost guarantee a club takeover at some point in the future, or indeed a scenario where we can buy back onto the board. In the event (not as likely) that we lose the case, nothing really changes and we stay as we were. No voice and meaningless shares.
But the above wont be pointed out in the Trust pack of course as the ones writing like having their feet cosily under the table. |
I'd be absolutely dumbfounded if there is litigation. |  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 19:12 - Jul 19 with 2712 views | DafyddHuw |
| Hello the Trust on 13:30 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
That's not something the Trust could do unilaterally, at least after the fact. It would need the candidate's approval. Maybe one for next year's election. It's not a bad idea as it goes. I wouldn't have a problem with it anyway.
I stand by what I said though. The Trust can't determine the quality or content of the statements. The submissions are totally at the discretion of those standing. If they're not up to scratch then don't vote for them. I sort of agree with you to a point, at least in terms of commenting on the deal and actions going forward. |
Yes. I agree with this post. Mebbe next year. Then again....
Unfortunately, as I know nothing about the stance of the candidates regarding the deal/litigation, attitude to the Yanks, or any ideas they have about the Trust helping the club going forward, then I really have no idea who to vote for, so I wont. Democracy, eh?
And I won't be renewing my membership. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 19:49 - Jul 19 with 2637 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 12:23 - Jul 19 by costalotta |
I agree with the sentiment here but not with the outcome wher you say that 21m guarantees a takeover in the future. Or whatever you meant by that. If that day comes then it won't be good and judging by the performance of the Trust, the defections in the early days to the mismanagement and short sightedness of recent times I'm not Trust in its current setup has the nous nor the ability to achieve that. |
I am not sure what you mean by that?
If the day comes when the Trust are able to take over the club, or at least buy a majority stake in the club. The club would need to be League 1 I'd have thought at the £21m price. But that could happen (back to back relegations) whether the Trust stay in their token seat or not.
A takeover by the Trust would then guarantee the club never falls into these kinds of hands again, a £5m payoff as a "keep quiet please" bribe, would put a stop to the notion of that ever happening in the future, which of course means the club continues a lifetime of uncertainty.
If it never comes to that then surely that is good news not bad? It means the club is doing well and thus retaining its value.
I cant think of a single reason why litigation would be a bad move. We have little to no influence or voice now as it is. Why on earth would we contemplate throwing away the chance to secure the clubs future for an amount that achieves diddly squat for anyone? [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 20:06]
| |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 19:59 - Jul 19 with 2607 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 13:07 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
Well, that's your take on it. Other interpretations are of course available.
As for the people writing the pack, their continued involvement depends on the members. Could very easily be out of there in a couple of weeks anyway. Snide remarks regarding their motives do you no credit IMO. |
There aren't any meaningful alternate views unless they harbour an agenda and thus leave out a host of information. My deduction was not a view, it was a settlement of fact.
To say the decision is "to work with them or not" is bordering on the ridiculous. It is nothing like a decision to work with them or not. Even picking to take the deal doesnt guarantee you "work with them" - it means they ask you, you give your opinion, and they do what they want anyway. That isnt working with someone.
In return you waver any legal rights and take a meaningless amount of money that achieves absolutely nobodys objectives what so ever. If the club ever gets in to trouble, The Trust then has to sit by and watch the club get handed over to absolutely anybody (of which The Trust also may have to hand over its own remaining shares for pittance) and find themselves out of the club - with a nothing amount of money in the bank.
Any option other than to take the advice of the QC regarding the case (that we have paid tens of thousands for), and the Trust will go down in history as the group that failed the supporters and threw away an opportunity to safe guard the club for ever. You can hide behind the fact it was a members vote, but the Trust has swayed it in one direction for the very reason to influence the vote. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 20:17]
| |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 20:18 - Jul 19 with 2562 views | monmouth |
There's a lot that resonates with me in e20s post. We paid and waited a year for a legal opinion that says we have a good case (probably the most positive possible legal opinion) and then the Board advises "nah, we should take an offer that even we are saying -and you are aren't you, publicly and privately - is not a particularly good one, but is the only one we have.
I hate the thought of legal action but I really can't see a choice, and I am quite discomforted by the trust boards position, as I would normally look to follow it. In this case I just can't fathom it though, I just can't. It seems nothing less than bottling out and throwing in a strong hand at the first opponent bluff. If we lose in court, the Trust board will be forgiven and remembered for courage.....throw this lever away for a pat on the head and...well....
Still, I guess that ship has sailed. No recommendation, just facts unspun would have been infinitely preferable for my money. Hey ho. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 20:19]
|  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 20:22 - Jul 19 with 2552 views | MattG |
| Hello the Trust on 19:59 - Jul 19 by E20Jack |
There aren't any meaningful alternate views unless they harbour an agenda and thus leave out a host of information. My deduction was not a view, it was a settlement of fact.
To say the decision is "to work with them or not" is bordering on the ridiculous. It is nothing like a decision to work with them or not. Even picking to take the deal doesnt guarantee you "work with them" - it means they ask you, you give your opinion, and they do what they want anyway. That isnt working with someone.
In return you waver any legal rights and take a meaningless amount of money that achieves absolutely nobodys objectives what so ever. If the club ever gets in to trouble, The Trust then has to sit by and watch the club get handed over to absolutely anybody (of which The Trust also may have to hand over its own remaining shares for pittance) and find themselves out of the club - with a nothing amount of money in the bank.
Any option other than to take the advice of the QC regarding the case (that we have paid tens of thousands for), and the Trust will go down in history as the group that failed the supporters and threw away an opportunity to safe guard the club for ever. You can hide behind the fact it was a members vote, but the Trust has swayed it in one direction for the very reason to influence the vote. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 20:17]
|
Given that, by your reckoning, I must be harbouring an agenda, I probably shouldn't get into this but there are a couple of points there that I just want to pick up on.
First, why would the Trust "have to hand over its own remaining shares for a pittance"? If the Americans are selling up, why do you assume that it would be for a loss rather than a profit? Surely there's at least an even chance that we would actually make more money that way than through a forced sale as a result of legal action.
Second, what genuine reason(s) do you feel the Trust Board has for recommending the deal as opposed to legal action? It should be remembered that the QC has at no point recommended that we take the legal route. Yes, he has indicated that we have a strong case but that's definitely not the same thing. |  | | |
| Hello the Trust on 20:49 - Jul 19 with 2522 views | Dewi1jack |
| Hello the Trust on 20:22 - Jul 19 by MattG |
Given that, by your reckoning, I must be harbouring an agenda, I probably shouldn't get into this but there are a couple of points there that I just want to pick up on.
First, why would the Trust "have to hand over its own remaining shares for a pittance"? If the Americans are selling up, why do you assume that it would be for a loss rather than a profit? Surely there's at least an even chance that we would actually make more money that way than through a forced sale as a result of legal action.
Second, what genuine reason(s) do you feel the Trust Board has for recommending the deal as opposed to legal action? It should be remembered that the QC has at no point recommended that we take the legal route. Yes, he has indicated that we have a strong case but that's definitely not the same thing. |
Can't answer the second question but I'm going to hazard a guess at the first, especially as the advice coming out from the Trust seems to be take a bad deal, keep drag rights in the hope that we get sold for a profit.
History is absolutely littered with football clubs being sold at a loss.
We're one- sold for a quid plus the debt
Portsmouth, Leeds, Villa, Birmingham etc etc
Or going totally titsup Hereford, Chester, Accy Stanley etc etc
So, we go titsup again.
Club sold for a quid and our shares raise 10pence or less
Plus the £5 million - the loss of a fair few long term members putting in their £10 for a few seasons
Our present Trust board then go down in the club history alongside of those b'stard sellout scum as the ones who wrecked Swansea City FC.
Take a bad deal?
Or go and try to make a deal that would leave the Trust with 10% and £11 million or so in the bank.
Maybe adding in Tag but not Drag rights
Or go for £21 million and wait for the Merrycans to flog the club and they will at a profit or when they're holding far too much debt owed by the club and hope the next owners invite us back in as a £11-£21 million partner.
Hard cash is a very good incentive for investors.
Point 2 is too speculative.
Embarrassed?
Too much to hide in a public airing of dirty washing?
Pride?
Pure guesswork by anyone NOT on the Trust board.
Maybe even guesswork on the Boards part as well if cards have been played close to the chest- need to know syndrome.
Edit.
Still a big thanks to all the Trust board who are trying to help us all understand this sh1te.
Thought this crap was done and dusted when we got rid of Penney, Silver Shield, 9th floor etc etc
Ah well.
Sh1t hapens [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 20:51]
|  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 20:49 - Jul 19 with 2520 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 20:22 - Jul 19 by MattG |
Given that, by your reckoning, I must be harbouring an agenda, I probably shouldn't get into this but there are a couple of points there that I just want to pick up on.
First, why would the Trust "have to hand over its own remaining shares for a pittance"? If the Americans are selling up, why do you assume that it would be for a loss rather than a profit? Surely there's at least an even chance that we would actually make more money that way than through a forced sale as a result of legal action.
Second, what genuine reason(s) do you feel the Trust Board has for recommending the deal as opposed to legal action? It should be remembered that the QC has at no point recommended that we take the legal route. Yes, he has indicated that we have a strong case but that's definitely not the same thing. |
Firstly - You have misquoted me. You missed out the word "may" which is a pretty big word to leave out given the context you then went on to project.
Second - When you are involved in something, sometimes you cannot see the wood for the trees. You also dont like to think all your time and effort amount to nothing. It would be quite hard for somoene to admit their time is meaningless by conceding that the Trusts views are meaningless.
I honestly believe the Trust think they have far more influence than they do. Whether that is them telling themselves that or indeed the Americans telling them that. There is also the kudos of being involved with a PL club. We have all seen the normal folk who get sucked into this and get punch drunk.
Of course successful legal action, although it would mean the Trust is in a position to safeguard the clubs future forever also means those currently involved in the Trust get the rug pulled away from under their feet and ivernight do not get to know the inner workings of the club. I am certain I speak for some, but not all on that however.
On the subject of getting £21m and then ensuring that if the club does fail then The Trust can buy a controlling stake, this was once met by "yes but how long will that take, it could be long after both yours and my time". To me that sums up personal involvement for some is put above the longterm wellbeing of the club.
There should have been either no recommendaton from the Trust on the matter, or a comprehensive roundup of both scenarios. Not just selected, weighted views. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 20:56 - Jul 19 with 2494 views | PozuelosSideys |
Have to be honest, having read a lot of the bile hurled at members of the current Trust on here alone, i dunno why anyone would bother putting the time and effort in to take that amount of grief. Especially from most who wouldnt even dream of standing themselves.
Good luck to those that do. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 21:08 - Jul 19 with 2471 views | MattG |
| Hello the Trust on 20:49 - Jul 19 by E20Jack |
Firstly - You have misquoted me. You missed out the word "may" which is a pretty big word to leave out given the context you then went on to project.
Second - When you are involved in something, sometimes you cannot see the wood for the trees. You also dont like to think all your time and effort amount to nothing. It would be quite hard for somoene to admit their time is meaningless by conceding that the Trusts views are meaningless.
I honestly believe the Trust think they have far more influence than they do. Whether that is them telling themselves that or indeed the Americans telling them that. There is also the kudos of being involved with a PL club. We have all seen the normal folk who get sucked into this and get punch drunk.
Of course successful legal action, although it would mean the Trust is in a position to safeguard the clubs future forever also means those currently involved in the Trust get the rug pulled away from under their feet and ivernight do not get to know the inner workings of the club. I am certain I speak for some, but not all on that however.
On the subject of getting £21m and then ensuring that if the club does fail then The Trust can buy a controlling stake, this was once met by "yes but how long will that take, it could be long after both yours and my time". To me that sums up personal involvement for some is put above the longterm wellbeing of the club.
There should have been either no recommendaton from the Trust on the matter, or a comprehensive roundup of both scenarios. Not just selected, weighted views. |
Fair enough about the "may" but my point still stands - it's at least as likely that we may sell our remaining shares for more than the currently offered price.
I've only been on the Trust Board since January and have no direct involvement with any discussions with the Americans. I also fully expect not to get re-elected this time around so have absolutely no vested personal interest in retaining Trust involvement in the Club. However, I do genuinely believe that involvement has some benefit and would prefer an arrangement that protects it. I'm also not comfortable, no matter how good the odds appear to be, with gambling the existence of the Trust for a return that may well come anyway.
If there was no offer on the table then I would be shouting as loud as anyone for legal action but the fact that there is changes things for me. It's not a perfect deal but then negotiated settlements very rarely are.
I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it. What I don't respect is your assertion that I can only be disagreeing for selfish reasons. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
