| Trust Update... 20:34 - May 18 with 31617 views | marchamjack |
CONFIDENTIAL
This update is being sent to you as a registered member of Swansea City Supporters’ Society Limited, which is also known as the ‘Swansea City Supporters’ Trust’ (‘Trust’). If you are not a member of the Trust, please do not read it. If you are a member, please do not share it or pass it on to others. On the advice of our lawyers, we need to state that nothing in this update is, or is intended as, a waiver of legal professional privilege or any other type of privilege.
In January 2018 the majority owners of Swansea City decided to ‘put on hold’ indefinitely the ongoing discussions on the previously proposed deal relating to the part sale of the Trust’s shareholding in Swansea City Football 2002 Limited, which (through another company) owns the Football Club. With no indication as to whether the deal could be resurrected in the future, the Trust engaged further specialist legal advice in order to determine the next steps that could be taken to best protect the interests of the Trust and, therefore, our members. It will be recalled that we have previously reported that initial advice from Queen’s Counsel (a senior lawyer) was taken last year.
As a result, the Trust and our legal advisers have carried out a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the 2016 sale of a controlling interest in the Club and the impact of these events on the Trust and our shareholding. This involved going back to 2001/2002, when the Club was saved from bankruptcy by the Trust and others, and establishing the relevant factual history and developments from then until the present day. Many people and sources had to be consulted to achieve this and the exercise has only been completed within the last few days.
Our lawyers have today sent (by electronic means or post) to the Club and its shareholders a detailed letter, setting out a number of legal claims on the part of the Trust, including complaints as to the very negative impact the sale and related matters have had on the Trust’s position as a shareholder. The letter and its schedules extend to some 60 pages.
On advice from our lawyers, and in accordance with Court guidelines, the Trust has offered to enter into a formal ‘mediation’ process with the majority owners and others, in order to seek to resolve these claims and complaints. The aim is to seek a provisional agreement to settle past differences, with a view to moving ahead together with the task of rebuilding the Club and returning it to top level football. Any such provisional agreement would be put to members for approval, by way of a consultation.
Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which relevant parties seek to resolve disputes with the assistance of a trained independent and impartial mediator. The mediator cannot impose a solution, but uses his or her skills to bring the parties together. The letter that has been sent proposes that mediation takes place in early July, to allow time for responses to be provided to the letter. While it is a voluntary process, mediation is increasingly being seen by courts as a necessary first step before any formal court proceedings are taken and costs sanctions can be applied for unreasonably failing to mediate. The Trust is duty bound to explore all available legal avenues to protect the interests of the Trust and our members. If mediation were refused or the process proved unsuccessful, and if Trust members support such action, future court proceedings are possible.
If a potential resolution is achieved via the mediation process, it will be set out in a binding, written settlement agreement. However, we can assure our members that any agreement will not be finalised unless it is approved by Trust members as part of a formal consultation exercise.
Members should be aware, however, that if the offer of formal mediation is accepted, that it is a confidential process. This means that the Trust Board will be limited in what we are able to report during the mediation process, unless or until a provisional agreement is reached (or alternative options are identified) on which members can be consulted.
We will update members as soon as we are able to provide further information.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team
|  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |  |
| Trust Update... on 10:42 - May 20 with 2169 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 10:37 - May 20 by AguycalledJack |
What you want to know? |
Do you have an interest to declare, are you a mediator or a solicitor, and in the case of the latter what kind of law do you practice. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 10:44 - May 20 with 2165 views | AguycalledJack |
| Trust Update... on 10:42 - May 20 by Shaky |
Do you have an interest to declare, are you a mediator or a solicitor, and in the case of the latter what kind of law do you practice. |
No interest to declare, not a mediator. Just a swans fan and trust member. Not a solicitor either. [Post edited 20 May 2018 10:45]
|  | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:46 - May 20 with 2162 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 09:51 - May 20 by swancity |
Further procrastination from the Trust. Anything other than deal with and actually confront the big issues. |
What did you want them to do ? |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:47 - May 20 with 2147 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 09:57 - May 20 by peenemunde |
Given that this so called meditation is confidential, what the mediator thinks or says is irrelevant, if the majority shareholders choose to pay lip service to the whole event. |
Indeed and if they do that what do you think will happen next ? | | | |
| Trust Update... on 10:52 - May 20 with 2134 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 10:47 - May 20 by Phil_S |
Indeed and if they do that what do you think will happen next ? |
Lawyers will extract even more fees. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 10:54 - May 20 with 2125 views | Shaky |
. . or Kaplan will make some new derisory settlement offer which the anti-litigation Trust board faction will pounce on and put to a vote of the membership. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 10:55 - May 20 with 2123 views | Shaky |
. . .sometime next year. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 10:59 - May 20 with 2107 views | Shaky |
In fact the pre-trial guidelines impose an obligation on the parties to "support the efficient management of those proceedings"
Is this efficient or is it dragging out?
You could almost argue stringing this out is intended to be harmful to Kaplan's interest, particularly given he is now practically speaking forced to the mediation table. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Update... on 11:12 - May 20 with 2082 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 10:44 - May 20 by AguycalledJack |
No interest to declare, not a mediator. Just a swans fan and trust member. Not a solicitor either. [Post edited 20 May 2018 10:45]
|
And with that reply you have a greater interest than the person you replied to | | | |
| Trust Update... on 11:33 - May 20 with 2017 views | wobbly |
| Trust Update... on 10:20 - May 20 by Shaky |
" I think Shaky might not be familiar with the weight that the courts apply to the practice directions, which are annexed to the Civil Procedure Rules. "
What are you talking about?
You provided the link and I read it.
Nowhere does it say that ADR is mandatory. Nowhere.
The requirements were clearly set out in clause 8 as I mentioned.
Negotiation or ADR. There has been plenty of negotiation, more than ample.
Unless you can point me to something more compelling this is bullshit.
Edit -- correction. the guideline don;t even say Negotiation or ADR but rather Negotiation or ADR should be considered.
What a load of w@ank this has all turned out to be. [Post edited 20 May 2018 10:29]
|
Calm down, Shaky. I wasn’t having a dig, just saying you might not know that the court places a lot of weight on following these documents. I’ve seen stuff on here that suggests you’re not a lawyer or in the UK so why would you? You’re right that the document says it’s not mandatory. But that doesn’t mean to say that the court will take a dim view if you don’t try it first. ADR means very specific things (and mediation is listed as one of them in the document I posted) but it’s not prescriptive and it’s not mandatory. I don’t know what’s happened in the negotiations with the majority shareholders. But I very much doubt that any of that would constitute pre action negotiations. So mediation sounds like the smart place to start. That’s all. |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 11:35 - May 20 with 2002 views | chad |
| Trust Update... on 10:20 - May 20 by Shaky |
" I think Shaky might not be familiar with the weight that the courts apply to the practice directions, which are annexed to the Civil Procedure Rules. "
What are you talking about?
You provided the link and I read it.
Nowhere does it say that ADR is mandatory. Nowhere.
The requirements were clearly set out in clause 8 as I mentioned.
Negotiation or ADR. There has been plenty of negotiation, more than ample.
Unless you can point me to something more compelling this is bullshit.
Edit -- correction. the guideline don;t even say Negotiation or ADR but rather Negotiation or ADR should be considered.
What a load of w@ank this has all turned out to be. [Post edited 20 May 2018 10:29]
|
My thoughts entirely
We have already negotiated with them at length. Reached an agreement which Was massively disadvantageous to us - but still they reneged on that proving themselves to be totally untrustworthy
We have done all we need to to attempt to reach an agreement which met or nearly met our legal entitlements.
This is not a cattle auction, they have legal obligations. Remember when experienced Counsel said we had a strong case, the first responsible step was to try and agree a settlement. Contrary to what was published on here our responsibility was to try and agree an acceptable agreement which met or nearly met our legal entitlements. There was no obligation to accept any rubbish deal they tried to unload on us and still no idea why the Trust tried to push that deal. |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 11:40 - May 20 with 1982 views | chad |
| Trust Update... on 09:54 - May 20 by waynekerr55 |
I would think (hope) that an expensive QC would have suggested mediation as the last resort before court action. The wheels of legal action turn slower than Mr Creosote |
But that makes little sense as one of the main options of the vote was to commence legal action - no mention of mediation prior to legal action then.
We had already met our responsibilities to negotiate an acceptable settlement with them - see my post above | | | |
| Trust Update... on 11:42 - May 20 with 1972 views | donkonky |
If the Trust have entered into the mediation process in good faith and not just as a means to initiate a court case then what do you ‘Legal Eagles’ think would be an ideal outcome? What would it take for the Trust to back off legal action or is there no going back? |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 11:50 - May 20 with 1950 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 11:33 - May 20 by wobbly |
Calm down, Shaky. I wasn’t having a dig, just saying you might not know that the court places a lot of weight on following these documents. I’ve seen stuff on here that suggests you’re not a lawyer or in the UK so why would you? You’re right that the document says it’s not mandatory. But that doesn’t mean to say that the court will take a dim view if you don’t try it first. ADR means very specific things (and mediation is listed as one of them in the document I posted) but it’s not prescriptive and it’s not mandatory. I don’t know what’s happened in the negotiations with the majority shareholders. But I very much doubt that any of that would constitute pre action negotiations. So mediation sounds like the smart place to start. That’s all. |
I am perfectly calm, thanks very much.
I just don't like being bullshitted, which you now seem to be engaging in once more. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 11:52 - May 20 with 1941 views | wobbly |
| Trust Update... on 11:50 - May 20 by Shaky |
I am perfectly calm, thanks very much.
I just don't like being bullshitted, which you now seem to be engaging in once more. |
Fair enough. Let’s leave it there then. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 11:52 - May 20 with 1935 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 11:42 - May 20 by donkonky |
If the Trust have entered into the mediation process in good faith and not just as a means to initiate a court case then what do you ‘Legal Eagles’ think would be an ideal outcome? What would it take for the Trust to back off legal action or is there no going back? |
The real question is why should we be in any doubt about what it would take broadly?
As it stands the answer is we haven't a fcuking clue. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 11:58 - May 20 with 1916 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 11:52 - May 20 by wobbly |
Fair enough. Let’s leave it there then. |
Indeed, let's leave it there having definitively established whoever wrote that email for the Trust misrepresented the obligation to offer entering into mediation to Kaplan. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 12:08 - May 20 with 1876 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 11:40 - May 20 by chad |
But that makes little sense as one of the main options of the vote was to commence legal action - no mention of mediation prior to legal action then.
We had already met our responsibilities to negotiate an acceptable settlement with them - see my post above |
Exactly.
However, it is a law of nature that new lawyers always like to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel.
And unfortunately nobody at the Trust seems to have been willing or able to ask basic questions about what on earth they were doing. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 12:16 - May 20 with 1856 views | Nookiejack |
I suppose the key issue is what does the Trust want to achieve from the mediation?
When they were first approached by Yanks v1.0 Moores and Noell there was a certain offer on the table that they rejected.
So is the Trust's objective to beat Yanks v1.0 offer?
Alternatively the offer by Kaplan and Levein (Yanks V2.0) was a very poor one and you would think that Yanks v1.0 would have been better than this. You can argue that if we had stayed in the PL for a number of seasons and if TV rights kept increasing, it may have eventually bettered Yanks v1.0.
The current status seems to be Kaplan's and Levein's offer was on the basis of £5m upfront and then further drip fed payments, across a number of seasons, providing we stayed in the PL, which obviously we haven't.
So does the Trust just want £5m now and to maintain 16% stake?
You can argue that Kaplan and Levein might have made a mistake in not going ahead with the £5m upfront and further drip-fed payments, instead of allegedly asking the Trust for further concessions - as would have taken another period of upcoming uncertainty for the club away.
If I was a member of Kaplan's and Levein's consortium, I would be very concerned how they have managed this. Both on the field and off it. We are now in the Championship with pending legal action ahead, with the Supporter's Trust, who represent the lifeblood of the club. What a mess.
I also can't personally see how the Trust could claim the mediation as a success - if it doesn't achieve at least the Moores and Noell's first offer - otherwise that would be an admission that they should have accepted that offer, in the first place. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 12:37 - May 20 with 1809 views | monmouth |
The Trust clearly needs to get out, with as much of the 21m the stake was worth as they can get, and let the ownership of the club take its course, and put no money back in, unless a far more significant stake can be purchased.
Levien and Kaplan are in a tricky position. The can raise no more capital now, one would assume, so no offer is acceptable from their side. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 12:44 - May 20 with 1797 views | chad |
Mart6 instead of down voting realistic concerns and hard fact, perhaps it would be helpful for you to put forward some coherent argument against these posts - always assuming you have one and are not just amusing yourself in an issue of great importance to the ‘Trust’ and worth £20m plus to protect the future of professional football in (Swansea).
Which you may understand is quite different from financially proping up the short term profit objectives of venture capitalist who have repeatedly walked over us and are on public record as openly lying to fans faces, whilst the Trust Board, knowing this, sat next to them and never said a word. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 13:03 - May 20 with 1757 views | chad |
| Trust Update... on 11:12 - May 20 by Phil_S |
And with that reply you have a greater interest than the person you replied to |
Yet under your watch Phil, knowing no legal action would be taken without a vote, anyone whatever their motive (and there were 20 million plus motives) was able to sign up to the Trust for a fiver and use their vote to help dictate our future, without any check on what their interests were or even if they existed.
Whilst you dismissed out of hand the request that the massively overwhelming non Trust member, wider actual supporter base (which the Trust is supposed to represent) should be given a say on this matter | | | |
| Trust Update... on 13:07 - May 20 with 1746 views | Jackfath |
Now that this thread has involved all the serious legal eagle posters I shall no longer be contributing.
I'll leave you with this.
Well done to the Trust, use this next phase as a springboard to bring back to us what we once had. Good luck to you, and may you have grit and determination to see the task through. I wish you well. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 14:02 - May 20 with 1678 views | Darran |
| Trust Update... on 13:07 - May 20 by Jackfath |
Now that this thread has involved all the serious legal eagle posters I shall no longer be contributing.
I'll leave you with this.
Well done to the Trust, use this next phase as a springboard to bring back to us what we once had. Good luck to you, and may you have grit and determination to see the task through. I wish you well. |
You forgot to add that you hope all the condescending twà ts like Chad put themselves up for the next Trust election for us to vote for them. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 14:38 - May 20 with 1619 views | longlostjack |
| Trust Update... on 12:37 - May 20 by monmouth |
The Trust clearly needs to get out, with as much of the 21m the stake was worth as they can get, and let the ownership of the club take its course, and put no money back in, unless a far more significant stake can be purchased.
Levien and Kaplan are in a tricky position. The can raise no more capital now, one would assume, so no offer is acceptable from their side. |
This. Then who knows. Although it currently looks unlikely there may be an opportunity to buy some more shares in the future to take the holding to over 25%. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.