| Could the trust be doomed? 15:16 - Nov 6 with 27699 views | NOTRAC |
I am not sure about this, but because of the way the ownership of the shares in Swansea City have actually been made, it might be that two "owners" could allow the American investors virtual control of the Club, without recourse to the present Board of Directors, the Trust,or the remaining shareholders.
We are often told that Martin Morgan and his wife own 225,000 shares in the club and that Brian Ketzon owns 200,000 shares which together equate to 50% of the total shares issued.
In fact they actually own no shares at all.The shares are owned by Oth Limited (225,000 shares) and Five Thirty Limited (161216shares) and T L R Investments Limited (38784shares)
It can be assumed therefore that Oth Limited is owned by Martin Morgan and his wife, and the other two companies by Brian Ketzon and family.
Without knowing of any legal restrictions,both Martin Morgan and Brian Ketzon could sell their shares in Oth Limited, Five Thirty Limited and T L R Investments Limited without any recourse to Swansea City Football Club and let in the Americans through the back door.The shares as such would not have changed hands, they are still owned by the same Companies (where incidentally they are shown as investments on the Balance Sheets of those Companies), it is just that the Americans have control of those shares.
If the above is legally feasible, then the Americans could contain absolute control by buying in exactly the same way the shares allegedly owned by Dineen but which are in fact owned by Bulk Vending Limited and Van Zweden whose shares are owned by Swansea Jacks Limited.
If the above scenario was possible,and I know of no reason why legally it is not, then the Trust would be powerless to stop it, and would receive nothing for their shares
I would hope there are provisions in place to stop the above happening, otherwise the Trust could be doomed. |  |
| |  |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 22:58 - Nov 8 with 1226 views | Davillin |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 22:46 - Nov 8 by westx |
the question is a simple one - was this work they were doing before they were involved in the club or did they get it because they had an inside track? genuine question are there more there in a similar position?
Every shareholder must have an agenda now surely given the massive sums of money being talked about? |
The answer has been written in several threads on here several times. The most recent one a couple of posts above:
"LondonLisa confirmed that there are very strict rules of corporate law about retaining the companies of shareholders. I very seriously doubt that the club violated any of them. It could be legally suicidal."
Either you don't read posts, or you're looking to stir the shit.
I can't speak specifically in detail about U.K. corporate law, but I know that, like most areas of the law, U.K. and U.S. law is often almost identical, and Lisa has confirmed that.
The main ones: To retain for hire the company of any director or official or a member of his family, the process is laid out in detail. It must be done openly with full disclosure from the prospective hire, and sworn statements from the individual or his relative on the Board, and the job must be open for bids publicly aired, for starters.
I would hope that you would take from this that pursuing this subject is fruitless and is best abandoned. [Post edited 9 Nov 2014 3:20]
|  |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 22:59 - Nov 8 with 1220 views | _ |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 22:40 - Nov 8 by Darran |
I know for a fact they under charged. |
Oh please, your time on here is done. |  |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:02 - Nov 8 with 1213 views | westx |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 22:58 - Nov 8 by Davillin |
The answer has been written in several threads on here several times. The most recent one a couple of posts above:
"LondonLisa confirmed that there are very strict rules of corporate law about retaining the companies of shareholders. I very seriously doubt that the club violated any of them. It could be legally suicidal."
Either you don't read posts, or you're looking to stir the shit.
I can't speak specifically in detail about U.K. corporate law, but I know that, like most areas of the law, U.K. and U.S. law is often almost identical, and Lisa has confirmed that.
The main ones: To retain for hire the company of any director or official or a member of his family, the process is laid out in detail. It must be done openly with full disclosure from the prospective hire, and sworn statements from the individual or his relative on the Board, and the job must be open for bids publicly aired, for starters.
I would hope that you would take from this that pursuing this subject is fruitless and is best abandoned. [Post edited 9 Nov 2014 3:20]
|
nobody is claiming it is illegal I don't think but it is jobs for the boys | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:02 - Nov 8 with 1213 views | Darran |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 22:46 - Nov 8 by westx |
the question is a simple one - was this work they were doing before they were involved in the club or did they get it because they had an inside track? genuine question are there more there in a similar position?
Every shareholder must have an agenda now surely given the massive sums of money being talked about? |
They got it because they had an inside track but they did it cheaper.
People forget where we were at the time. |  |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:03 - Nov 8 with 1212 views | Witneyjack |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 22:55 - Nov 8 by _ |
Answer ARQS and Dav's questions before going all out and apologising for the club/board. |
Condescending responses won't get to me and I am just as capable of making one. I'm not apologising for the Board. I'll make it simple for you.
1 The club need a job completing.
2 The job is one with a cost implication.
3 A club official's company can complete said job at a cheaper price than competitors.
4 The official's company provide said service saving the club money.
Explain where the issue is as I'm buggered if I can see one? |  | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:04 - Nov 8 with 1201 views | Darran |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:03 - Nov 8 by Witneyjack |
Condescending responses won't get to me and I am just as capable of making one. I'm not apologising for the Board. I'll make it simple for you.
1 The club need a job completing.
2 The job is one with a cost implication.
3 A club official's company can complete said job at a cheaper price than competitors.
4 The official's company provide said service saving the club money.
Explain where the issue is as I'm buggered if I can see one? |
That's a great post | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:05 - Nov 8 with 1197 views | _ |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:03 - Nov 8 by Witneyjack |
Condescending responses won't get to me and I am just as capable of making one. I'm not apologising for the Board. I'll make it simple for you.
1 The club need a job completing.
2 The job is one with a cost implication.
3 A club official's company can complete said job at a cheaper price than competitors.
4 The official's company provide said service saving the club money.
Explain where the issue is as I'm buggered if I can see one? |
You're right officer, there is no "issue" here but you get where we're coming from I hope... Or maybe you are monotonously happy with whatever the towing of the line might be?
Our club is slipping from between our fingers .... Happy with that.,.? | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:06 - Nov 8 with 1194 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:03 - Nov 8 by Witneyjack |
Condescending responses won't get to me and I am just as capable of making one. I'm not apologising for the Board. I'll make it simple for you.
1 The club need a job completing.
2 The job is one with a cost implication.
3 A club official's company can complete said job at a cheaper price than competitors.
4 The official's company provide said service saving the club money.
Explain where the issue is as I'm buggered if I can see one? |
The point is that they've all done rather well out of the Swans.
They've been good for us too, obviously but it kinda debunks the whole "working 64 hours a week for £100 a week" notion that we have liked to portray. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:08 - Nov 8 with 1185 views | Newhousemustscore |
Sorry, has it actually been mentioned how many shares are being sold to "the Americans". It's being put over by huw Jenkins like it's some sort of Dragons Den pitch, where we're just looking to sell part of the business in order to get contacts/a way in on the American market. I still don't know how much money could be gained from such a market. Huw seemed very keen on going down that road and surprised me when he said he'd back an extra game in the normal season being played abroad - he talked about American markets then. Also, my biggest fear is the actual guy they are proposed to do business with. John Moores does appear to have a very colourful business history. | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:10 - Nov 8 with 1174 views | Darran |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:08 - Nov 8 by Newhousemustscore |
Sorry, has it actually been mentioned how many shares are being sold to "the Americans". It's being put over by huw Jenkins like it's some sort of Dragons Den pitch, where we're just looking to sell part of the business in order to get contacts/a way in on the American market. I still don't know how much money could be gained from such a market. Huw seemed very keen on going down that road and surprised me when he said he'd back an extra game in the normal season being played abroad - he talked about American markets then. Also, my biggest fear is the actual guy they are proposed to do business with. John Moores does appear to have a very colourful business history. |
T2C knows I'm sure he'll tell you shortly. | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:10 - Nov 8 with 1172 views | _ |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:04 - Nov 8 by Darran |
That's a great post |
Can you not be the only PATHETIC ONE to pop up with "great posts" and have something to say for yourself? | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:15 - Nov 8 with 1140 views | Witneyjack |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:05 - Nov 8 by _ |
You're right officer, there is no "issue" here but you get where we're coming from I hope... Or maybe you are monotonously happy with whatever the towing of the line might be?
Our club is slipping from between our fingers .... Happy with that.,.? |
Am I concerned about an outside investor ? Yes as I don't want us to go down the same road as our friends up the road.
The question of director's companies completing work for the club at a cheaper than competitors price has no part in that concern.
Trying to use that as a stick to beat the Board with is ridiculous. If people are concerned they should ask pertinent questions otherwise it looks a witch hunt.
I still appreciate what they did with our support and if they wish to cash in, good luck to them. My only concern is that they are careful who they pass the 'baton' on to. | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:23 - Nov 8 with 1126 views | Witneyjack |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:06 - Nov 8 by AngelRangelQS |
The point is that they've all done rather well out of the Swans.
They've been good for us too, obviously but it kinda debunks the whole "working 64 hours a week for £100 a week" notion that we have liked to portray. |
If fans still believe the "unpaid work" by directors , more fool them. For many years that was the case but quite rightly, now we are financially better off, they should be recompensed. [Post edited 8 Nov 2014 23:24]
| | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:24 - Nov 8 with 1123 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 22:58 - Nov 8 by Davillin |
The answer has been written in several threads on here several times. The most recent one a couple of posts above:
"LondonLisa confirmed that there are very strict rules of corporate law about retaining the companies of shareholders. I very seriously doubt that the club violated any of them. It could be legally suicidal."
Either you don't read posts, or you're looking to stir the shit.
I can't speak specifically in detail about U.K. corporate law, but I know that, like most areas of the law, U.K. and U.S. law is often almost identical, and Lisa has confirmed that.
The main ones: To retain for hire the company of any director or official or a member of his family, the process is laid out in detail. It must be done openly with full disclosure from the prospective hire, and sworn statements from the individual or his relative on the Board, and the job must be open for bids publicly aired, for starters.
I would hope that you would take from this that pursuing this subject is fruitless and is best abandoned. [Post edited 9 Nov 2014 3:20]
|
I agree with you.
I also would say that I completely believe the point that Darran made. The 'arms length' bit doesn't only ensure that work is done at a commercial rate, the need to be able to so clearly demonstrate value is such that I would completely expect any work done by a related party to be done more cheaply than would otherwise be possible.
It is of course an advantage to the supplier to get the work (I don't imagine that any work would be done at a loss) but it would also almost certainly be an advantage to the company (in this case the Swans) as well since to go elsewhere would cost more.
I think we should be careful to avoid the trap of suddenly thinking that the board are a bunch of shady wide boys (or at least I'm going to avoid it).
I personally would prefer the club to remain in its current ownership as I've said before, and I also believe that some (maybe not all) of the current shareholders are looking to 'cash in'. However, this doesn't in my mind change the achievements of the past 10 or 11 years. | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:24 - Nov 8 with 1122 views | JackToff |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:03 - Nov 8 by Witneyjack |
Condescending responses won't get to me and I am just as capable of making one. I'm not apologising for the Board. I'll make it simple for you.
1 The club need a job completing.
2 The job is one with a cost implication.
3 A club official's company can complete said job at a cheaper price than competitors.
4 The official's company provide said service saving the club money.
Explain where the issue is as I'm buggered if I can see one? |
Presume these jobs were competitively tendered?
In a small close group what prevents the internal tender from getting inside information on the other tenders giving them a massive advantage so they can marginally undercut them to get the job?
Similar with recruitment say for the commercial role - what protections were put into place to get the best, most qualified person for the job? | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:25 - Nov 8 with 1118 views | Darran |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:24 - Nov 8 by londonlisa2001 |
I agree with you.
I also would say that I completely believe the point that Darran made. The 'arms length' bit doesn't only ensure that work is done at a commercial rate, the need to be able to so clearly demonstrate value is such that I would completely expect any work done by a related party to be done more cheaply than would otherwise be possible.
It is of course an advantage to the supplier to get the work (I don't imagine that any work would be done at a loss) but it would also almost certainly be an advantage to the company (in this case the Swans) as well since to go elsewhere would cost more.
I think we should be careful to avoid the trap of suddenly thinking that the board are a bunch of shady wide boys (or at least I'm going to avoid it).
I personally would prefer the club to remain in its current ownership as I've said before, and I also believe that some (maybe not all) of the current shareholders are looking to 'cash in'. However, this doesn't in my mind change the achievements of the past 10 or 11 years. |
Absolutely Lisa great post. | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:26 - Nov 8 with 1111 views | trampie |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 17:29 - Nov 8 by londonlisa2001 |
You've made it completely obvious that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to dealing with UK companies, particularly privately owned companies, so I can't be bothered to argue with you.
Now tell me, have you as yet found a few minutes to look into why so many Americans have Welsh surnames and whether this means it's a vast untapped market of people longing for some link to the old country? |
About 50% of signers of the American deceleration of independence were Welsh or of Welsh descendents were they not ?
Would they really be fighting for the English crown ?
Wales has a big claim on América, Prince Madoc discovered it some say, lots of African Americans have Welsh surnames too and lots of their top universities was set up by the Welsh. |  |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:27 - Nov 8 with 1111 views | Witneyjack |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:24 - Nov 8 by londonlisa2001 |
I agree with you.
I also would say that I completely believe the point that Darran made. The 'arms length' bit doesn't only ensure that work is done at a commercial rate, the need to be able to so clearly demonstrate value is such that I would completely expect any work done by a related party to be done more cheaply than would otherwise be possible.
It is of course an advantage to the supplier to get the work (I don't imagine that any work would be done at a loss) but it would also almost certainly be an advantage to the company (in this case the Swans) as well since to go elsewhere would cost more.
I think we should be careful to avoid the trap of suddenly thinking that the board are a bunch of shady wide boys (or at least I'm going to avoid it).
I personally would prefer the club to remain in its current ownership as I've said before, and I also believe that some (maybe not all) of the current shareholders are looking to 'cash in'. However, this doesn't in my mind change the achievements of the past 10 or 11 years. |
My point exactly, although more eloquently put! ;-) | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:29 - Nov 8 with 1107 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:23 - Nov 8 by Witneyjack |
If fans still believe the "unpaid work" by directors , more fool them. For many years that was the case but quite rightly, now we are financially better off, they should be recompensed. [Post edited 8 Nov 2014 23:24]
|
No and I've personally got no problem with them taking dividends or putting business through their personal companies. We do have a lot to be thankful to them for and of course they shouldn't work for free.
At the same time, I can also see why they'd want to sell to set them and their families up for life. At the end of the day we can't stop them doing that. What we can do though is to make sure that the trust doesn't also sell it's soul and keeps as many shares as it can | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:29 - Nov 8 with 1104 views | Witneyjack |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:24 - Nov 8 by JackToff |
Presume these jobs were competitively tendered?
In a small close group what prevents the internal tender from getting inside information on the other tenders giving them a massive advantage so they can marginally undercut them to get the job?
Similar with recruitment say for the commercial role - what protections were put into place to get the best, most qualified person for the job? |
What does it have to do with the alleged takeover? | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:31 - Nov 8 with 1101 views | Witneyjack |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:29 - Nov 8 by AngelRangelQS |
No and I've personally got no problem with them taking dividends or putting business through their personal companies. We do have a lot to be thankful to them for and of course they shouldn't work for free.
At the same time, I can also see why they'd want to sell to set them and their families up for life. At the end of the day we can't stop them doing that. What we can do though is to make sure that the trust doesn't also sell it's soul and keeps as many shares as it can |
Totally agree | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:37 - Nov 8 with 1088 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:26 - Nov 8 by trampie |
About 50% of signers of the American deceleration of independence were Welsh or of Welsh descendents were they not ?
Would they really be fighting for the English crown ?
Wales has a big claim on América, Prince Madoc discovered it some say, lots of African Americans have Welsh surnames too and lots of their top universities was set up by the Welsh. |
Your point on African-Americans is of course the relevant bit of what I was saying.
Unfortunately, it is the case that one of the main reasons for so many Welsh names in the US is caused by the large number of slave owners of Welsh descent. Given the practice of slaves taking on the last names of their owners, it is now the case that many, many African-Americans have Welsh names - Williams, Jones, Thomas, Davies etc etc. | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:39 - Nov 8 with 1083 views | JackToff |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:29 - Nov 8 by Witneyjack |
What does it have to do with the alleged takeover? |
If we were making the most what we already had then surely there would be no need for "investment" and it's potential final destination and ultimate outcome for what was our club | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:44 - Nov 8 with 1066 views | trampie |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:37 - Nov 8 by londonlisa2001 |
Your point on African-Americans is of course the relevant bit of what I was saying.
Unfortunately, it is the case that one of the main reasons for so many Welsh names in the US is caused by the large number of slave owners of Welsh descent. Given the practice of slaves taking on the last names of their owners, it is now the case that many, many African-Americans have Welsh names - Williams, Jones, Thomas, Davies etc etc. |
I have heard it said in some quarters that they were treated so well by their Welsh employers that they wanted to take their name ?, then on the other hand you hear a totally different story. | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:46 - Nov 8 with 1057 views | Witneyjack |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:39 - Nov 8 by JackToff |
If we were making the most what we already had then surely there would be no need for "investment" and it's potential final destination and ultimate outcome for what was our club |
But surely, if by getting an "inside track" it saves our club money on work that needed doing, it is a good thing? As Lisa said earlier, let's not let this 'takeover' issue cloud our judgment on the Board of Directors. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
