| The future of SCFC 09:32 - Nov 11 with 42115 views | _ |
Can we start a thread to get some structure at the meeting night before West Ham. I'm not going to the game and won't be in the country that weekend and I've also heard the Q&A session can be a bit ad hoc let's say. Dav and ARQS have asked some serious questions.
Do you think it's possible for the ones going to go in ready with structured questions?
I wouldn't necessarily want these questions on a public forum but I'm sure anyone that wants something answered can get their questions to the Trust people or the ones attending that night.
That would only take just a little organising and a panel could decide the best say 10 questions to take to Leigh and Huw. I'm sure someone at the event could also set up a video link or at least record it? [Post edited 13 Dec 2014 15:26]
|  |
| |  |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:52 - Dec 13 with 1913 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:40 - Dec 13 by snork44 |
No,not an insult at all ! Just stating a fact that you are basically trolling, the facts of the meeting have been laid out, yet you in your own little world have put your own spin on the answers and come up with a conclusion that suits your agenda. Yes, be wary of corporate America because they can be the most ruthless bar stewards the world has ever seen, but you are inferring that the board are a bunch of country bumpkins that would roll over supinely as Uncle Hank waves a wad of Greenbacks in HJ's or MM's faces ! Remember these are the same people that stood up to Petty and I am pretty damn sure they are not going to let that legacy go to waste. |
You are the most basic of idiots I've crossed swords with in a long time, and that's saying something.
By the time this has all been boxed up and posted you wont have a facking clue what's hit us.
You sound like every cardiff fan still living under that deluded rock you crawl out of now and again through the shame you still associate yourself with what could have been.
An investor with no agenda you said, I think most hoped you'd just fack off quietly after that.... | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:56 - Dec 13 with 1908 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:47 - Dec 13 by NeathJack |
It's called not having an agenda son.
As I've said previously I don't think the current shareholders should profit from any share sale, or is it too convenient for you to forget that?
However that is not a realistic scenario, but yes I do have faith in the current shareholders to do us as a club, and a fanbase right.
How have they done so far?
As for my "put downs" whatever they may be, it's called simply disagreeing with a point of view. |
You're already treading carefully which is a good sign at least...
And I do agree you stated that fact.
Paul, a question for you. Do you think you're a better fan than me? Do you really, genuinely think I don't love Swansea City FC with all my heart?
If you think I dont, I can understand your recent barb.... If not, I'm struggling mate... | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 03:49 - Dec 13 with 1864 views | snork44 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:52 - Dec 13 by _ |
You are the most basic of idiots I've crossed swords with in a long time, and that's saying something.
By the time this has all been boxed up and posted you wont have a facking clue what's hit us.
You sound like every cardiff fan still living under that deluded rock you crawl out of now and again through the shame you still associate yourself with what could have been.
An investor with no agenda you said, I think most hoped you'd just fack off quietly after that.... |
First of all you don't know me, so how do you assume I am a 'idiot' ? Just a basic question for you, what proof do you have that the board is going to sell the club lock, stock and barrel to the American consortium ? As I said before there is nothing wrong in asking probing questions, but the best people to ask are Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan at the fans forum not repeating the same mantra that the board is preparing to sell the fans down the river! As for being deluded, I am as skeptical as most people regarding the American investment as I work for a corporate American firm and know pretty well how the American business mindset works! If you read my post I stated 'if an investor with no agenda came on the scene, you would still have an objection! If the board wanted a quick profit they would had a deal wrapped up weeks ago, but the board is quite rightly treading carefully. As I said before these are the people that saw off Petty and I don't think they give up that legacy lightly. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 07:01 - Dec 13 with 1832 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:47 - Dec 13 by NeathJack |
It's called not having an agenda son.
As I've said previously I don't think the current shareholders should profit from any share sale, or is it too convenient for you to forget that?
However that is not a realistic scenario, but yes I do have faith in the current shareholders to do us as a club, and a fanbase right.
How have they done so far?
As for my "put downs" whatever they may be, it's called simply disagreeing with a point of view. |
I've long accepted that T2C is one of those who reads what he wants to read and remembers what he wants to remember
Despite many posts to the contrary he believes ticket prices are agreed with because once I said I thought that the friendly ticket prices were fair. Indeed, I think I was even here agreeing with Dimi that they weren't. He even ignored the evidence presented last week that there even appeared to be the split at club board level on the subject.
Then you have the personal attacks on people and the very fine line he was drawing between personal opinion and slander. And that is before he wanted people to have a voice but when they did and it differed with his then it was wrong to have that voice.
It's quite sad to watch as I know he has a massive passion for the club but he believes he has the only one and I will say it now that if he manages to get himself elected I would be far more worried about the future of the Trust and their part in the club than I am now - despite whatever shortcomings we have.
In short, Chris has no idea what happens behind the scenes particularly with the Americans deal at this point in time and he also will know that there is no way at this point in time that what is happening will be made public but when it is he will probably still criticise but to other trust members possibly reading I hope you look beyond the personal stuff that is posted and know that genuine concerns will be raised but at least you know it is right to see what is said first |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 07:03 - Dec 13 with 1831 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:56 - Dec 13 by _ |
You're already treading carefully which is a good sign at least...
And I do agree you stated that fact.
Paul, a question for you. Do you think you're a better fan than me? Do you really, genuinely think I don't love Swansea City FC with all my heart?
If you think I dont, I can understand your recent barb.... If not, I'm struggling mate... |
And this is the proof that the poster believes this will just be presented as a completed deal with no say whatsoever
So naïve in its extreme and a viewpoint clouded by many personal agendas against people (most of which I have no idea why they exist) | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 08:05 - Dec 13 with 1786 views | NOTRAC |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:47 - Dec 13 by NeathJack |
It's called not having an agenda son.
As I've said previously I don't think the current shareholders should profit from any share sale, or is it too convenient for you to forget that?
However that is not a realistic scenario, but yes I do have faith in the current shareholders to do us as a club, and a fanbase right.
How have they done so far?
As for my "put downs" whatever they may be, it's called simply disagreeing with a point of view. |
The trouble is that although these are the same shareholders who stood up to Petty,rolls are now reversed.Are they going to be so concerned about the future of the Club when their own future can be secured by now accepting a deal that can have a life changing scenario for them and their families.
These are the same shareholders who have already had their original monies repaid threefold through dividends.
The same shareholders who have changed their shares into their private companies for apparently tax saving purposes.
The same shareholders who could allow the Trust to increase their shareholding to really safeguard the future of the Club, but who haven't.Why?
If I was a representative of the Trust I wouldn't trust any of them one inch.That may be wrong, but it is the safest way.
As for keeping things quiet .Why?
Is all going to be revealed when it's to late.
Dangerous at the moment. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 08:56 - Dec 13 with 1750 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 07:01 - Dec 13 by Phil_S |
I've long accepted that T2C is one of those who reads what he wants to read and remembers what he wants to remember
Despite many posts to the contrary he believes ticket prices are agreed with because once I said I thought that the friendly ticket prices were fair. Indeed, I think I was even here agreeing with Dimi that they weren't. He even ignored the evidence presented last week that there even appeared to be the split at club board level on the subject.
Then you have the personal attacks on people and the very fine line he was drawing between personal opinion and slander. And that is before he wanted people to have a voice but when they did and it differed with his then it was wrong to have that voice.
It's quite sad to watch as I know he has a massive passion for the club but he believes he has the only one and I will say it now that if he manages to get himself elected I would be far more worried about the future of the Trust and their part in the club than I am now - despite whatever shortcomings we have.
In short, Chris has no idea what happens behind the scenes particularly with the Americans deal at this point in time and he also will know that there is no way at this point in time that what is happening will be made public but when it is he will probably still criticise but to other trust members possibly reading I hope you look beyond the personal stuff that is posted and know that genuine concerns will be raised but at least you know it is right to see what is said first |
And this is my point exactly.
I long for the day when we have no one on the Trust who has any other interest other than just wanting to serve it for the good of the football club we all love.
No one that has ever done business with the club, no one that stands to make personal gain from the club and no one that runs the two main football forums most of the supporters read.
And to a certain degree you are right, Phil, I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, none of us do because the communication levels are pretty much non existent.
And further more what personal attacks have i made apart from repeatedly point out that the above is all wrong?
Also how long have some of you stood on the Trust. Some of the names there i think I've seen on the ,Trust since the day dot? And yes, I know everyone has a chance to be re-elected but don't you think it's a bit stale gone now?
And also it seems that you are privy to a lot more than the fanbase at large are aware of and it's been said before that you are taking expert advice etc. Well I hope that is the case because that's a decision a very small number of people have taken on behalf of thousands and thousands others, remember that. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 09:28 - Dec 13 with 1717 views | Sprattini |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 07:01 - Dec 13 by Phil_S |
I've long accepted that T2C is one of those who reads what he wants to read and remembers what he wants to remember
Despite many posts to the contrary he believes ticket prices are agreed with because once I said I thought that the friendly ticket prices were fair. Indeed, I think I was even here agreeing with Dimi that they weren't. He even ignored the evidence presented last week that there even appeared to be the split at club board level on the subject.
Then you have the personal attacks on people and the very fine line he was drawing between personal opinion and slander. And that is before he wanted people to have a voice but when they did and it differed with his then it was wrong to have that voice.
It's quite sad to watch as I know he has a massive passion for the club but he believes he has the only one and I will say it now that if he manages to get himself elected I would be far more worried about the future of the Trust and their part in the club than I am now - despite whatever shortcomings we have.
In short, Chris has no idea what happens behind the scenes particularly with the Americans deal at this point in time and he also will know that there is no way at this point in time that what is happening will be made public but when it is he will probably still criticise but to other trust members possibly reading I hope you look beyond the personal stuff that is posted and know that genuine concerns will be raised but at least you know it is right to see what is said first |
What like the Trust members you have censored from this site without reason for having the nerve to politely give their reasoned point of view
Or the repeated personal attacks you allowed your chief mod to make on others without once answering the abuse reports made
Or allowing multiple IDs to harangue other users and to skew opinion
Or denying any link between you running this business for click pennies and your treatment on it of the very supporters you are supposed to represent. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 09:29 - Dec 13 with 1714 views | Sprattini |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 07:03 - Dec 13 by Phil_S |
And this is the proof that the poster believes this will just be presented as a completed deal with no say whatsoever
So naïve in its extreme and a viewpoint clouded by many personal agendas against people (most of which I have no idea why they exist) |
That all depends if it is a meaningful say that can have impact on the situation in time to affect the outcome.
It bears repeating as it has previously been repeated again and again …….
If the “investors” “invest”
- the many millions will go in the pockets of the current shareholders
- the investors will want to recoup those many millions and many more from our club even though the club has not seen a penny of it
What is naïve is to fiddle whilst Rome burns.
The Shareholders have already had a good return on their investment both in financial and personal terms. Timely action can rapidly put off the investors if they see we will use every available tool at our disposal to fight this.
What this means however is that the current shareholders may not be able to make massive windfall profits off our club. This may be difficult for some more especially those who may have a close relationship with those shareholders either personal or business. However any money that goes to the current shareholders will be expected to be recouped from the club and it is the duty of the Trust to prevent this from happening with every tool at their disposal.
This is not a time for holding other peoples coats but for taking off our own and showing strength in numbers and come to the table with massive strength not as paupers waiting at their master’s indulgence. | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 10:25 - Dec 13 with 1664 views | Darran |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 07:01 - Dec 13 by Phil_S |
I've long accepted that T2C is one of those who reads what he wants to read and remembers what he wants to remember
Despite many posts to the contrary he believes ticket prices are agreed with because once I said I thought that the friendly ticket prices were fair. Indeed, I think I was even here agreeing with Dimi that they weren't. He even ignored the evidence presented last week that there even appeared to be the split at club board level on the subject.
Then you have the personal attacks on people and the very fine line he was drawing between personal opinion and slander. And that is before he wanted people to have a voice but when they did and it differed with his then it was wrong to have that voice.
It's quite sad to watch as I know he has a massive passion for the club but he believes he has the only one and I will say it now that if he manages to get himself elected I would be far more worried about the future of the Trust and their part in the club than I am now - despite whatever shortcomings we have.
In short, Chris has no idea what happens behind the scenes particularly with the Americans deal at this point in time and he also will know that there is no way at this point in time that what is happening will be made public but when it is he will probably still criticise but to other trust members possibly reading I hope you look beyond the personal stuff that is posted and know that genuine concerns will be raised but at least you know it is right to see what is said first |
Future Trust Member: I'm really not happy with the Trusts stance on that issue.
Future Trust Liaison Officer Fack off you mug,oh and if you want to take it further PM me,pr*ck.
Honestly does anyone on this board actually take the bloke seriously? |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 10:46 - Dec 13 with 1646 views | monmouth |
I'm very hungover myself today so this post might turn out to be tripe, but I'm surprised (well maybe not) at the way the argument is polaarising.
Trust the Board vs don't trust the Board
Trust the Trust vs don't trust the Trust
Any battle that we are in is a battle now, so aren't the arguments about the mechanics and governance of the trust academic red herrings that should be parked?
The crux of it to me at the moment is, are the Trust happy with what is going on?
Certainly recent indicators (the last statement) the club seeming trying to bad mouth the trust, the scrapping (and refusal to consider reintroducing) a hypothecated season ticket charge thus weakening, or at least not strengthening the trust would indicate that they are not or shouldn't be. has the position changed since the last Trust statement Phil?
If not, then I can't see why everyone in the trust and in the supporter base is not on extreme high alert, and T2C and Spratty (forget any bias towards the posters for a moment if you have any) are only expounding what most of us should be feeling. The time to raise an alarm isn't when a fire has taken hold.
Someone said once to me that they would 'trust but verify' (ie not trust absolutely) and that is surely what our Trust, representing the supporters. are doing (?), and, within any NDA(s) shouldn't the Trust be clearly informing their members regularly of the current state of play and the actions they are taking to do so and to explicitly protect the future of our club? Currently we are left with the trust saying 'against a change of ownership' and the Chairman saying 'existing shares are effectively up for sale'. So how can there not be major concerns?
I don't attend Trust forums so I appreciate there is a serious weakness in my asking this but, given the trust's extant statement, and the Chairman's comments that shares might well be sold (bringing about a change of ownership), why was he not strongly challenged by the Trust at the meeting and their position (no need) firmly reiterated? I would hope this certainly happening behind the scenes or, if their stance has now changed, that the Trust might inform their members of that.
Sorry for the length. I just think that all our hackles should be raised just now, no matter who is promoting any position. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 11:51 - Dec 13 with 1596 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 10:46 - Dec 13 by monmouth |
I'm very hungover myself today so this post might turn out to be tripe, but I'm surprised (well maybe not) at the way the argument is polaarising.
Trust the Board vs don't trust the Board
Trust the Trust vs don't trust the Trust
Any battle that we are in is a battle now, so aren't the arguments about the mechanics and governance of the trust academic red herrings that should be parked?
The crux of it to me at the moment is, are the Trust happy with what is going on?
Certainly recent indicators (the last statement) the club seeming trying to bad mouth the trust, the scrapping (and refusal to consider reintroducing) a hypothecated season ticket charge thus weakening, or at least not strengthening the trust would indicate that they are not or shouldn't be. has the position changed since the last Trust statement Phil?
If not, then I can't see why everyone in the trust and in the supporter base is not on extreme high alert, and T2C and Spratty (forget any bias towards the posters for a moment if you have any) are only expounding what most of us should be feeling. The time to raise an alarm isn't when a fire has taken hold.
Someone said once to me that they would 'trust but verify' (ie not trust absolutely) and that is surely what our Trust, representing the supporters. are doing (?), and, within any NDA(s) shouldn't the Trust be clearly informing their members regularly of the current state of play and the actions they are taking to do so and to explicitly protect the future of our club? Currently we are left with the trust saying 'against a change of ownership' and the Chairman saying 'existing shares are effectively up for sale'. So how can there not be major concerns?
I don't attend Trust forums so I appreciate there is a serious weakness in my asking this but, given the trust's extant statement, and the Chairman's comments that shares might well be sold (bringing about a change of ownership), why was he not strongly challenged by the Trust at the meeting and their position (no need) firmly reiterated? I would hope this certainly happening behind the scenes or, if their stance has now changed, that the Trust might inform their members of that.
Sorry for the length. I just think that all our hackles should be raised just now, no matter who is promoting any position. |
Absolutely spot on and hopefully so diplomatically worded that you will get a response from Phil or other Trust board members. Mike, Hereford Jack asked very good questions also and so have a great deal of other posters/Trust members.
While Huw Jenkins is going on record that he feels the deal is only 50/50 to go ahead then mathematically speaking it's as likely to go ahead as not.
The fans and Trust members do not want this "investment" to go ahead, that is very evidently clear so like Monmouth just asked why were they not challenged robustly for continuing to hold talks with these Americans who they did not carry out due diligence with, I've been told.
Communicate please, don't censor or brush our very valid and worrisome concerns under the carpet.
Maybe the next time someone posts on here about the Trust it will be about these concerns and not the personality of the posters asking the questions. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 11:59 - Dec 13 with 1584 views | Jackfath |
If one is so hell bent on hearing all the discussions in one of these forums, would one be wise to actually go? It seems pointless (and rather immature) to me to continue (this has been going on for a fair few days now) with continual haranguing of people who were there and their opinions of what what was said.
Just an observation.
 |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:21 - Dec 13 with 1549 views | Sprattini |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 11:59 - Dec 13 by Jackfath |
If one is so hell bent on hearing all the discussions in one of these forums, would one be wise to actually go? It seems pointless (and rather immature) to me to continue (this has been going on for a fair few days now) with continual haranguing of people who were there and their opinions of what what was said.
Just an observation.
|
If you think this thread is pointless then I suggest you read Monmouth's post above
very very carefully | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:35 - Dec 13 with 1530 views | NOTRAC |
Look, this is one of the most important times for this club since we moved into the Liberty.It doesn't matter if this thread goes on and on , because things can change dramatically in moments.in fact I would suggest that this thread is the most important thre ad in the history of Planet Swans.
Let's continue therefore to use this thread as things develop .don't start new threads.
Look , what we've learnt from this thread in the last few days is
a)shareholders are looking to sell their individual shares
b) the Stadium may be purchased off the Local Authority.
To my mind neither of these will really benefit the Club at the moment, especially if the purchase of the Stadium was achieved through the American investors loans.
It is so important to continue to post and discuss these issues. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:48 - Dec 13 with 1513 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:35 - Dec 13 by NOTRAC |
Look, this is one of the most important times for this club since we moved into the Liberty.It doesn't matter if this thread goes on and on , because things can change dramatically in moments.in fact I would suggest that this thread is the most important thre ad in the history of Planet Swans.
Let's continue therefore to use this thread as things develop .don't start new threads.
Look , what we've learnt from this thread in the last few days is
a)shareholders are looking to sell their individual shares
b) the Stadium may be purchased off the Local Authority.
To my mind neither of these will really benefit the Club at the moment, especially if the purchase of the Stadium was achieved through the American investors loans.
It is so important to continue to post and discuss these issues. |
Absolutely and you continue to make good points. Hopefully we'll have more posts from the likes of yourselves and again hopefully from Trust representatives and less from the trolls with their pithy remarks. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:55 - Dec 13 with 1495 views | skippyjack |
Has anyone actually read my post? Anyone?.. I'm getting concerned by the skilled lot..
This takeover will benefit the city.
This takeover 'may not' benefit the club.
Read, digest and let it all sink in.. (quietly walks away mumbling.. academics? acaf*ckingdemics.. I'm retiring early if this is what I've got to put up with..thank f*ck they're not teaching me anything) |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:01 - Dec 13 with 1480 views | jackonicko |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:35 - Dec 13 by NOTRAC |
Look, this is one of the most important times for this club since we moved into the Liberty.It doesn't matter if this thread goes on and on , because things can change dramatically in moments.in fact I would suggest that this thread is the most important thre ad in the history of Planet Swans.
Let's continue therefore to use this thread as things develop .don't start new threads.
Look , what we've learnt from this thread in the last few days is
a)shareholders are looking to sell their individual shares
b) the Stadium may be purchased off the Local Authority.
To my mind neither of these will really benefit the Club at the moment, especially if the purchase of the Stadium was achieved through the American investors loans.
It is so important to continue to post and discuss these issues. |
Some good posts this morning. Monmouth is spot on, and some good questions from T2C and Notrac.
We know more, but we don't know everything. Also, I don't believe the final terms of any deal is decided, which is why HJ is 50/50. He us not 50/50 because the terms are of marginal benefit; it's because quite how the terms of any offer finally falls out is still not known. The value of any deal is very much in the detail as much as the headline terms.
If a loan is attached to the deal, it would have to be on advantageous terms to the club to sway HJ as a seller, if you believe his comments from Saturday. If the terms are no better than the club achieves elsewhere, then what is the value? I disagree with Notrac in that if those loan terms are good, I would rather the club bought the liberty first before expanding, but that's my own view. Depends how much the stadium costs too, of course. But all the signs are that the club is in a stronger bargaining position than the council. They are more a distressed seller, the club can be an opportunistic buyer. |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:25 - Dec 13 with 1440 views | skippyjack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 10:46 - Dec 13 by monmouth |
I'm very hungover myself today so this post might turn out to be tripe, but I'm surprised (well maybe not) at the way the argument is polaarising.
Trust the Board vs don't trust the Board
Trust the Trust vs don't trust the Trust
Any battle that we are in is a battle now, so aren't the arguments about the mechanics and governance of the trust academic red herrings that should be parked?
The crux of it to me at the moment is, are the Trust happy with what is going on?
Certainly recent indicators (the last statement) the club seeming trying to bad mouth the trust, the scrapping (and refusal to consider reintroducing) a hypothecated season ticket charge thus weakening, or at least not strengthening the trust would indicate that they are not or shouldn't be. has the position changed since the last Trust statement Phil?
If not, then I can't see why everyone in the trust and in the supporter base is not on extreme high alert, and T2C and Spratty (forget any bias towards the posters for a moment if you have any) are only expounding what most of us should be feeling. The time to raise an alarm isn't when a fire has taken hold.
Someone said once to me that they would 'trust but verify' (ie not trust absolutely) and that is surely what our Trust, representing the supporters. are doing (?), and, within any NDA(s) shouldn't the Trust be clearly informing their members regularly of the current state of play and the actions they are taking to do so and to explicitly protect the future of our club? Currently we are left with the trust saying 'against a change of ownership' and the Chairman saying 'existing shares are effectively up for sale'. So how can there not be major concerns?
I don't attend Trust forums so I appreciate there is a serious weakness in my asking this but, given the trust's extant statement, and the Chairman's comments that shares might well be sold (bringing about a change of ownership), why was he not strongly challenged by the Trust at the meeting and their position (no need) firmly reiterated? I would hope this certainly happening behind the scenes or, if their stance has now changed, that the Trust might inform their members of that.
Sorry for the length. I just think that all our hackles should be raised just now, no matter who is promoting any position. |
The trust is practically powerless.. if shares are up for sale.. they can be sold.. the American is entitled to his say.. we can shout from the rooftops.. but it's up to the shareholder who wants out.. if that shareholder wants an input from the Trust members.. he'd have told the trust board by now.. I'm not sure if the Trust board have had any input on the matter.. so Phil..
Have you consulted the shareholder who wants out?
Has the shareholder consulted the trust?
How long will we have to wait for an official statement?
Is the shareholder in negotiations with an American party right now?
How many shares are up for grabs? (Or is that debatable)
Just give a simple yes and no. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:25 - Dec 13 with 1438 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 08:56 - Dec 13 by _ |
And this is my point exactly.
I long for the day when we have no one on the Trust who has any other interest other than just wanting to serve it for the good of the football club we all love.
No one that has ever done business with the club, no one that stands to make personal gain from the club and no one that runs the two main football forums most of the supporters read.
And to a certain degree you are right, Phil, I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, none of us do because the communication levels are pretty much non existent.
And further more what personal attacks have i made apart from repeatedly point out that the above is all wrong?
Also how long have some of you stood on the Trust. Some of the names there i think I've seen on the ,Trust since the day dot? And yes, I know everyone has a chance to be re-elected but don't you think it's a bit stale gone now?
And also it seems that you are privy to a lot more than the fanbase at large are aware of and it's been said before that you are taking expert advice etc. Well I hope that is the case because that's a decision a very small number of people have taken on behalf of thousands and thousands others, remember that. |
It's not called a lack of communication on this occasion, you know that though you just don't like to admit it | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:28 - Dec 13 with 1424 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 11:51 - Dec 13 by _ |
Absolutely spot on and hopefully so diplomatically worded that you will get a response from Phil or other Trust board members. Mike, Hereford Jack asked very good questions also and so have a great deal of other posters/Trust members.
While Huw Jenkins is going on record that he feels the deal is only 50/50 to go ahead then mathematically speaking it's as likely to go ahead as not.
The fans and Trust members do not want this "investment" to go ahead, that is very evidently clear so like Monmouth just asked why were they not challenged robustly for continuing to hold talks with these Americans who they did not carry out due diligence with, I've been told.
Communicate please, don't censor or brush our very valid and worrisome concerns under the carpet.
Maybe the next time someone posts on here about the Trust it will be about these concerns and not the personality of the posters asking the questions. |
The points raised have been answered before - nothing has changed so it seems a little pointless answering them time and time again
but that is what you want it seems?? | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:32 - Dec 13 with 1409 views | NOTRAC |
Look, here's the worst scenario.
The Americans buy 30% of the shares from current individual holders.
They lend the club a further £30m to buy the ground on behalf of the Club.
They then acquire a further 49% of shares leaving them and the Trust the only shareholders.
They convert their loan into a new share issue thereby watering down the Trusts interest to approx less than 0.06.
Impossible?
It's been done before.The Trust end up with nothing.The other shareholders get everything.
The worst,worst,worst scenario.
They the sell the shares which now include the Liberty to Vincent Tan!!!
Please,please tell me I'm having a nightmare. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:37 - Dec 13 with 1397 views | jackonicko |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:32 - Dec 13 by NOTRAC |
Look, here's the worst scenario.
The Americans buy 30% of the shares from current individual holders.
They lend the club a further £30m to buy the ground on behalf of the Club.
They then acquire a further 49% of shares leaving them and the Trust the only shareholders.
They convert their loan into a new share issue thereby watering down the Trusts interest to approx less than 0.06.
Impossible?
It's been done before.The Trust end up with nothing.The other shareholders get everything.
The worst,worst,worst scenario.
They the sell the shares which now include the Liberty to Vincent Tan!!!
Please,please tell me I'm having a nightmare. |
Yes, that *could* happen. But whether it *can* happen very much lies in the detail.
And the responsibility for making sure it can't lies with those who are selling, not those who are holding. We have to watch the selling shareholders like hawks to make sure they live up to their self-declared responsibilities as custodians of our club.
Martin Morgan. Brian Katzen. Huw Jenkins. John van Zweden. Rob Davies. Leigh Dineen. This means you. | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:40 - Dec 13 with 1393 views | skippyjack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:32 - Dec 13 by NOTRAC |
Look, here's the worst scenario.
The Americans buy 30% of the shares from current individual holders.
They lend the club a further £30m to buy the ground on behalf of the Club.
They then acquire a further 49% of shares leaving them and the Trust the only shareholders.
They convert their loan into a new share issue thereby watering down the Trusts interest to approx less than 0.06.
Impossible?
It's been done before.The Trust end up with nothing.The other shareholders get everything.
The worst,worst,worst scenario.
They the sell the shares which now include the Liberty to Vincent Tan!!!
Please,please tell me I'm having a nightmare. |
That is possible.. but our city will benefit as a slight relief to the blow.. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:47 - Dec 13 with 1373 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 13:25 - Dec 13 by skippyjack |
The trust is practically powerless.. if shares are up for sale.. they can be sold.. the American is entitled to his say.. we can shout from the rooftops.. but it's up to the shareholder who wants out.. if that shareholder wants an input from the Trust members.. he'd have told the trust board by now.. I'm not sure if the Trust board have had any input on the matter.. so Phil..
Have you consulted the shareholder who wants out?
Has the shareholder consulted the trust?
How long will we have to wait for an official statement?
Is the shareholder in negotiations with an American party right now?
How many shares are up for grabs? (Or is that debatable)
Just give a simple yes and no. |
1. Shareholder or Shareholders?
2. We know of peoples desire to sell - they don't need to consult us to make their intentions known
3. When a formal offer is on the table both in terms of the offer itself and also what the potential means to any new shareholders agreement (I.e what will our position be after any change)
4. Yes, this is common knowledge and admitted at the fans forum in effect
5. Debatable
Sorry none of those are yes and no answers | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
