By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 23:05 - Dec 2 by Dewi1jack
I do believe you would still make a good leader of the Trust but, the vote was not rigged in the counting but in the proposal for each course of action paper. The bad deal was pushed very hard whilst the take legal action section was a sort of "don't take this course. It'll end badly" bit of writing. Most people who had no clue as to what was the likely outcome of the takeover, by an unknown (and still unknown) hedge fund or how badly the Trust had been f**ked over by Morgan, Beaky and the rest of the crew. These people were only going to vote one way- the way they were "influenced" That is how I see the vote was rigged. Not after when the votes were counted
And what p1sses me off the most is that 50% of the members couldn't be arzed to vote one way or t'other, even though the vote was free! Apathy will kill anything off.
As a matter of interest DewiJack, what is a ‘Hedge Fund’? I get really confused when you guys use the term.
0
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 10:20 - Dec 3 with 3052 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 20:41 - Dec 2 by Phil_S
It was portrayed in the public domain that Laudrup had lost interest and as a result he had to go,
Think it was touched on another post, he probably had lost interest but thats because he was watching the interference. This is one of the worlds greatest players...
Laudrup loses interest everywhere. The guy does seem to have a natural tendency to fall out with people, although I don't doubt for a second that he was soundly provoked in this case.
Regardless of the reasons, it's obvious that his departure gave certain individuals the green light to make the changes that they wanted to make and we are where we are now as a result. It's not going to get better whilst these certain people are still in place.
This post has been edited by an administrator
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
2
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 10:25 - Dec 3 with 3042 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 20:09 - Dec 2 by Phil_S
Do you know what Rich it isn't about fight, its about the evil that is the Premier League.
As much as we wanted to reach the promised land, the greed and the riches that went with it ripped the heart and soul out of the club
We got here with a team of players that gave a f*ck. Over seven years we have seen the team spirit eroded to now be a team of players who (with one or two notable exceptions) do not give any second thought for the football club. Last week we read stories of them out on the lash after another defeat and do you think we have many hurting like some of our fans
What depresses me even more is watching long term fans losing some of the passion for it all. I know of many and to an extent I get it as I feel it. I have missed three home games this season and with the exception of one I havent watched any of the TV coverage of them.
We are basket case of a club at the moment seemingly unable to make the changes that we need to make to get back on track. We cling onto the past glories that may actually go no further than just a few managerial appointments that worked (Roberto, Brendan and Michael) because all the evidence outside that says we havent done much right
I congratulated you Phil on the defence of the first bid from Yanks v1.0.
The thing is then what next? This was the strategic issue.
Did you expect to fend off every other bid for the club? The Selling shareholders had made their intention to sell. If the Trust were going to block them - they were going to have to do this behind the Trust's back. This is the reality.
Did you make approaches to the selling shareholders at this point? Or did the Trust Board have no intention to sell the Trust's stake. You have resigned yourself which indicates the Trust Board were not going to sell - so did the selling shareholders have no choice but to go behind the Trust's back?
The selling shareholders are given a bad press but you read posts of Martin Morgan lending his own money to fund player acquisitions and if true this would have help to generate the club's success. So they can't be 100% bad.
(Where I think the Selling shareholders were disingenuous, at best, was when then released JTAK with the propaganda we were a club run by the fans - for the fans - whilst at the same time were marketing the club around the world for sale).
If you take a look at the TV money £100m to £130m a year since we have been in the PL - when you take wages out of this - a club has circa £40m to spend a year. However the £40m amortises away over a 4 year cycle of a player's contract - so squad will probably max out at say £160m (4 x £40m on average) - if it has minimal commercial revenue/other revenue streams - like us.
The thing is if you take a headline signing of £10m, you then have to add agents fees and player signing on bonuses - so the total cost is likely to be £12m. The £40m doesn't then go that far.
In the Bony legal case - the agent allegedly seems to have received £8m plus headline transfer of £12m - so that could have cost us £20m? How much do you then have left to spend on rest of the squad?
So this is all fine if you are a top 6 club and have £400m of commercial income - Liverpool were having 80,000 supported attend their overseas summer tout matches in Australia. But we have 20,000 fans?
So for the rest of the club's outside the top 6 - it means they are much of a much and dependent on good managerial appointments, consistently getting key marque transfer signings right (remember Cornelius for Cardiff and recently Baston for us) and not having a bad run of injuries to key players.
I loved the Laudrup times but I would have thought those signings attached to his agent, didn't come cheap, when you add the fees paid to his agent and players bonuses - in the context of only having £40m a year to spend.
Where did you think the club could go once we had hit the peak of the Laudrup times in context of having £40m a year to spend on players? Yes we did have a competitive advantage of being in PL of 6 years, however take out the top 6 and you have 3 out of 14 chance of going down, ignoring Everton have a billionaire behind them, Stoke have the Bet365 money. Yes both these clubs are struggling this season - but they are both likely to stay ahead of us over 3-5 sesasons.
The Championship clubs coming up are also likely to have confidence and to be totally fresh - whereas I would suggest club's like us get stale, players and fans. We as fans have visited all the big grounds and had the experience of beating the top 6 clubs (except for Spurs) but where do we go next?
To get transfer signings right year in year out and not make mistakes is probably an impossibility - it is random - the top 6 clubs can make mistakes - we can't and every year 3 clubs are relegated.
The Selling Shareholders knew all this and my guess is they thought where do we go next? We have hit the ceiling and it is likely the only way is down?
I realise you worked with them from the start and the emotion that goes with this - but did you expect them to put £80m at stake? Did you think they wouldn't sell?
If you did think they would sell - then what was proposed to them to manage the process - when the next potential buyer of the club came along?
A new buyer was also likely to push the Trust into a minority position - so only way to keep the Trust in similar % position was an IPO.
If the Trust was going to be in a minority position - shouldn't it have banked £20m and then had the funds available to ensure professional football in Swansea?
So isn't all this an issue of the strategy being wrong since the defence of Yanks v1.0? The club eventually would be relegated from the PL, the Selling Shareholders were going to sell, the Trust was going to be left in a minority position, so the Trust should have banked the money?
1
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 12:45 - Dec 3 with 2979 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 12:39 - Dec 3 by Nookiejack
I congratulated you Phil on the defence of the first bid from Yanks v1.0.
The thing is then what next? This was the strategic issue.
Did you expect to fend off every other bid for the club? The Selling shareholders had made their intention to sell. If the Trust were going to block them - they were going to have to do this behind the Trust's back. This is the reality.
Did you make approaches to the selling shareholders at this point? Or did the Trust Board have no intention to sell the Trust's stake. You have resigned yourself which indicates the Trust Board were not going to sell - so did the selling shareholders have no choice but to go behind the Trust's back?
The selling shareholders are given a bad press but you read posts of Martin Morgan lending his own money to fund player acquisitions and if true this would have help to generate the club's success. So they can't be 100% bad.
(Where I think the Selling shareholders were disingenuous, at best, was when then released JTAK with the propaganda we were a club run by the fans - for the fans - whilst at the same time were marketing the club around the world for sale).
If you take a look at the TV money £100m to £130m a year since we have been in the PL - when you take wages out of this - a club has circa £40m to spend a year. However the £40m amortises away over a 4 year cycle of a player's contract - so squad will probably max out at say £160m (4 x £40m on average) - if it has minimal commercial revenue/other revenue streams - like us.
The thing is if you take a headline signing of £10m, you then have to add agents fees and player signing on bonuses - so the total cost is likely to be £12m. The £40m doesn't then go that far.
In the Bony legal case - the agent allegedly seems to have received £8m plus headline transfer of £12m - so that could have cost us £20m? How much do you then have left to spend on rest of the squad?
So this is all fine if you are a top 6 club and have £400m of commercial income - Liverpool were having 80,000 supported attend their overseas summer tout matches in Australia. But we have 20,000 fans?
So for the rest of the club's outside the top 6 - it means they are much of a much and dependent on good managerial appointments, consistently getting key marque transfer signings right (remember Cornelius for Cardiff and recently Baston for us) and not having a bad run of injuries to key players.
I loved the Laudrup times but I would have thought those signings attached to his agent, didn't come cheap, when you add the fees paid to his agent and players bonuses - in the context of only having £40m a year to spend.
Where did you think the club could go once we had hit the peak of the Laudrup times in context of having £40m a year to spend on players? Yes we did have a competitive advantage of being in PL of 6 years, however take out the top 6 and you have 3 out of 14 chance of going down, ignoring Everton have a billionaire behind them, Stoke have the Bet365 money. Yes both these clubs are struggling this season - but they are both likely to stay ahead of us over 3-5 sesasons.
The Championship clubs coming up are also likely to have confidence and to be totally fresh - whereas I would suggest club's like us get stale, players and fans. We as fans have visited all the big grounds and had the experience of beating the top 6 clubs (except for Spurs) but where do we go next?
To get transfer signings right year in year out and not make mistakes is probably an impossibility - it is random - the top 6 clubs can make mistakes - we can't and every year 3 clubs are relegated.
The Selling Shareholders knew all this and my guess is they thought where do we go next? We have hit the ceiling and it is likely the only way is down?
I realise you worked with them from the start and the emotion that goes with this - but did you expect them to put £80m at stake? Did you think they wouldn't sell?
If you did think they would sell - then what was proposed to them to manage the process - when the next potential buyer of the club came along?
A new buyer was also likely to push the Trust into a minority position - so only way to keep the Trust in similar % position was an IPO.
If the Trust was going to be in a minority position - shouldn't it have banked £20m and then had the funds available to ensure professional football in Swansea?
So isn't all this an issue of the strategy being wrong since the defence of Yanks v1.0? The club eventually would be relegated from the PL, the Selling Shareholders were going to sell, the Trust was going to be left in a minority position, so the Trust should have banked the money?
<b>Did you expect to fend off every other bid for the club? The Selling shareholders had made their intention to sell. If the Trust were going to block them - they were going to have to do this behind the Trust's back. This is the reality.
Did you make approaches to the selling shareholders at this point? Or did the Trust Board have no intention to sell the Trust's stake. You have resigned yourself which indicates the Trust Board were not going to sell - so did the selling shareholders have no choice but to go behind the Trust's back? </b>
Everybody knew that the club was going to be sold at some point the moment that there was ever a yanks v1.0. At no point was anyone blind to that so there was no reason to do that behind the trust's back unless they were worried that the people they were selling to may not stack up against what was really needed.
Did we ever make approaches to the selling shareholders? I have a copy of a letter sent to them all stating when yanks 2.0 were first revealed that said if the deal was right we may be prepared to sell some/all of the shares. It only suits the arguments of the likes of what xmastree is fed to believe otherwise.
0
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 14:16 - Dec 3 with 2916 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 14:02 - Dec 3 by Phil_S
<b>Did you expect to fend off every other bid for the club? The Selling shareholders had made their intention to sell. If the Trust were going to block them - they were going to have to do this behind the Trust's back. This is the reality.
Did you make approaches to the selling shareholders at this point? Or did the Trust Board have no intention to sell the Trust's stake. You have resigned yourself which indicates the Trust Board were not going to sell - so did the selling shareholders have no choice but to go behind the Trust's back? </b>
Everybody knew that the club was going to be sold at some point the moment that there was ever a yanks v1.0. At no point was anyone blind to that so there was no reason to do that behind the trust's back unless they were worried that the people they were selling to may not stack up against what was really needed.
Did we ever make approaches to the selling shareholders? I have a copy of a letter sent to them all stating when yanks 2.0 were first revealed that said if the deal was right we may be prepared to sell some/all of the shares. It only suits the arguments of the likes of what xmastree is fed to believe otherwise.
If that was the case why wait Phil? Shouldn't you (the Trust) and the ex owners have aligned with the strategy at that point prior to any new interest? So, should the signed letter have been sent a year earlier maybe?
I understand that there was obvious apprehension on the part of the owners to discuss that as the Trust had (in their eyes) scuppered the earlier sale possibility. But, the Trust are there to look after the fans interests in the club and if that's we ended up (agreeing to sell shares) why take such a passive approach? And, if the Trust board was split why didn't yu speak out and let it be known rather than incorrectly align at the wrong time with the wrong strategy?
0
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 14:19 - Dec 3 with 2910 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 14:16 - Dec 3 by costalotta
If that was the case why wait Phil? Shouldn't you (the Trust) and the ex owners have aligned with the strategy at that point prior to any new interest? So, should the signed letter have been sent a year earlier maybe?
I understand that there was obvious apprehension on the part of the owners to discuss that as the Trust had (in their eyes) scuppered the earlier sale possibility. But, the Trust are there to look after the fans interests in the club and if that's we ended up (agreeing to sell shares) why take such a passive approach? And, if the Trust board was split why didn't yu speak out and let it be known rather than incorrectly align at the wrong time with the wrong strategy?
Yes we should have been aligned and it was our belief that we were
However clearly they were more intent on ensuring they got their sale and made their money
A decision that they took at the exclusion of the trust and confirmed by both Jenkins, Levien and Kaplan to have been at the exclusion of the trust
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 14:19 - Dec 3 by Phil_S
Yes we should have been aligned and it was our belief that we were
However clearly they were more intent on ensuring they got their sale and made their money
A decision that they took at the exclusion of the trust and confirmed by both Jenkins, Levien and Kaplan to have been at the exclusion of the trust
This really is old ground you know
Sorry Phil, for the question... At what point do you believe yu were aligned? Was there an effort to confirm the alignment after yanks 1.0? Or was it the belief that you were aligned after that?
0
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 14:28 - Dec 3 with 2894 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 14:22 - Dec 3 by costalotta
Sorry Phil, for the question... At what point do you believe yu were aligned? Was there an effort to confirm the alignment after yanks 1.0? Or was it the belief that you were aligned after that?
Answer to that is both
Clearly I dont have the communications any more but there was efforts and belief
0
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 15:00 - Dec 3 with 2852 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 00:22 - Dec 3 by airedale
As a matter of interest DewiJack, what is a ‘Hedge Fund’? I get really confused when you guys use the term.
Fund managers raise funds from investors and invest it on behalf of these investors. Traditionally the fund might be an equity fund invested in equity investments (shares) or other types of fund such as bond fund, property fund, currency fund. Hopefully self explanatory. You then started to get hedge funds that might invest in, say, equities but also hedge the value of the investments with futures, options, leverage, borrowing, lending etc, in fact almost any way they could make additional money. These were supposed to allow the fund to make money in a falling market, as well as the traditionally profitable rising market. The term Hedge Fund now seems to be applied to funds that are invested In many different types of investment. They try all sorts of esoteric investments where they think they can make a return. They don't always make money of course.
Here's interesting; Steve Kaplan https://www.oaktreecapital.com/people/bio/steve-kaplan is an advisory partner (whatever that means) of a firm called Oaktree Capital. The firm manages about $100,000,000,000 (100 billion dollars) for its clients. It is possible to invest in a number of Funds or strategies. via this firm. Whether you would call any of them Hedge Funds, Im not sure. Its a very inexact term https://www.oaktreecapital.com/strategies
[Post edited 3 Dec 2017 17:16]
I stand in the North Stand
1
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 15:05 - Dec 3 with 2842 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 14:22 - Dec 3 by costalotta
Sorry Phil, for the question... At what point do you believe yu were aligned? Was there an effort to confirm the alignment after yanks 1.0? Or was it the belief that you were aligned after that?
The lack of alignment is clear. The old board would sell to anyone that would pony up the cash for them and spin it with weapons grade bullshit. The Trust wanted proper due diligence on any new owners. We have no idea who really currently beneficially owns us, only their mouthpieces , Porky and Goofy, sorry, Levien and Kaplan.
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 15:00 - Dec 3 by swanforthemoney
Fund managers raise funds from investors and invest it on behalf of these investors. Traditionally the fund might be an equity fund invested in equity investments (shares) or other types of fund such as bond fund, property fund, currency fund. Hopefully self explanatory. You then started to get hedge funds that might invest in, say, equities but also hedge the value of the investments with futures, options, leverage, borrowing, lending etc, in fact almost any way they could make additional money. These were supposed to allow the fund to make money in a falling market, as well as the traditionally profitable rising market. The term Hedge Fund now seems to be applied to funds that are invested In many different types of investment. They try all sorts of esoteric investments where they think they can make a return. They don't always make money of course.
Here's interesting; Steve Kaplan https://www.oaktreecapital.com/people/bio/steve-kaplan is an advisory partner (whatever that means) of a firm called Oaktree Capital. The firm manages about $100,000,000,000 (100 billion dollars) for its clients. It is possible to invest in a number of Funds or strategies. via this firm. Whether you would call any of them Hedge Funds, Im not sure. Its a very inexact term https://www.oaktreecapital.com/strategies
[Post edited 3 Dec 2017 17:16]
Kaplan seems quite a high powered, high value, businessman by the look of it. I wonder if he ever gets mixed up in any legal stuff in that business, probably not, shouldnt think he's ever spoken to a lawyer before the current dispute. I'm looking forward to seeing some of the activists from the forum taking over the Trust, then being the prime movers in taking on the guy and his buddies in a court case and trying to get 20 million quid out of them. However good the case, it'll need an almighty personal effort on their part to keep the lawyers updated with instructions as the case comes to court and progresses and a considerable amount of fortitude as Kaplan and Co's lawyers utilise whatever dirty tricks, ruses, etc they can.
Anyhow it'll be great sport, It'll be more entertaining than watching the Swans, that's for certain. There'll be a few casualties along the way, I expect, what with the stress of it. Anyway, Tally-ho. Good luck. As a training exercise to assess support, try getting a few protest leaflets handed out before Saturday.
I stand in the North Stand
0
Who is to blame for the current situation? (n/t) on 22:12 - Dec 4 with 2499 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 22:23 - Dec 2 by Phil_S
No because they were counted by an independent person who (I forget his exact title) is involved in counting votes at local elections
Each voting slip had a unique reference on it
Be careful on believing everything you read from people with clear agendas Alan
Phil are you referring to my comment that it was a shame that the voting papers were not numbered as no broad analysis could be done on the voting patterns of late joiners. If so…..
Then if you are now telling me that this is not the case, that is great news, presumably an analysis can be done if requested, to allay any concerns of both myself and the Trust Board, who I was told at the last meeting by a Trust Rep, also discussed this issue but decided to take no action.
As if this proves to be an issue then it raises serious questions about the vote, most especially when seen with the one sided arguments by the Trust to push the recommended but very poor deal through.
If my comment is what you were referring to and I was incorrect on this then you merely needed to reply to my post to state this. That would have been very helpful as I think it is very important that members have accurate information.
Even though I had taken this information from the written explanation of a Trust rep on this very site, I would have happily immediately apologised for getting this wrong (if indeed as your comment suggested I had) and explained why (now detailed with evidence at the bottom of this post). Unfortunately I was once again immediately summarily banned after making those 2 posts.
It certainly was no agenda on my part. And if indeed that was what you were referring to, I would love you to state up front what you think my agenda is other than wanting an honest and open dialogue re Trust concerns and having a very similar view on the way the consultation was handled to the likes of Monmouth and Lisa. The former who went as far as saying that the Trust would clearly rather have sex with a bacon slicer than take legal action.
Otherwise if suggestions of an agenda are casually thrown, without any justification or substance (especially against someone who has raised a number of substantial evidenced concerns) then it is merely a deflective slur to detract from the substance of the solid and genuine concerns of that person, and becomes the territory of dishonest behaviour.
Let me make this perfectly clear, I have no connections with the clubs owners or officials past or present, nor with the club itself except as a season ticket holder — and I would think my forthright criticisms of same from well back would support this view. Neither do I have aspirations within the Trust Board beyond, (as many others) being more than willing to offer our help and skills (if they can be of any use to help move the Trust forward).
For instance at the last meeting before the vote (the one where my husband spoke to you about the abuse and bannings on here — and after which I found I had been banned again when I got home from the meeting).
At the very end of that meeting (where the Trust was strongly putting the case for the deal) you announced to the meeting to
remember not to listen to people who google stuff.
Now what was that meant to mean.
Given that was a slur frequently thrown at Shaky on this very site, it is not difficult to understand where that cryptic message may be coming from. It seemed like an act of desperation from a Trust that at all costs did not want the vote to go for legal action, by trying to dismiss and belittle those bringing up substantial issues and concerns re the deal.
Seemingly trying to rubbish the opinion of someone who had repeatedly been ahead of, and more accurate than the Trust, in terms of the issues and their implications (as had repeatedly been previously done on here against Shaky) just because they were against the deal, was a new low.
Off course you were also rubbishing Lisa’s advice too because as she said herself recently, both Shaky and herself were as one voice in relation to the deal.
As you know at that meeting many people had no doubt that the sellers would screw us over — but as said to me when I tried to highlight the many problems with the deal.
We have to believe in the Trust — and it was that blind faith, that was exploited. Along with the repeated false suggestions we would be going against Counsels advice if we rejected the deal.
Also at that meeting support was voiced for a suggestion of getting the wider supporter community involved in the vote and you immediately quashed this idea.
I am sorry Phil none of that seems like a person being unwillingly dragged along by the rest of the Trust Board. It speaks to me of someone strongly pushing the deal for all they could, despite the obvious pattern of behaviour towards us by the partners that deal was putting us into the hands of.
(this thread was based on concerns, that like in the earlier election, voting papers on the deal might not be numbered and would merely take the use of a prepaid envelope as evidence of entitlement to vote).
I took on board a fairly early comment from the Trust on this at the time (which seemed to clearly support the fact that indeed the envelopes would again be used as the proof of entitlement to vote) as a definitive answer. I recalled this as the OP was rightfully very concerned about the security issues this raised.
Later on in the thread it was bumped and a couple of posts were made suggesting more secure methods were being considered for the deal vote — however I had not picked these up. Nor was there anything subsequently that I had seen here to say that unique ballot paper numbering had been introduced).
Voting Papers on 19:31 - Jul 13 with 1119 views MattG
For the vote on the Offer / Legal Action, I understand the stipulation will be that voting papers have to be returned individually in the freepost envelopes provided.
Any papers returned in a different envelope will be deemed a "spoiled ballot" as will any multiple papers returned in a single freepost envelope.
1
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 22:28 - Dec 4 with 2472 views
Who is to blame for the current situation? on 22:22 - Dec 4 by chad
Phil are you referring to my comment that it was a shame that the voting papers were not numbered as no broad analysis could be done on the voting patterns of late joiners. If so…..
Then if you are now telling me that this is not the case, that is great news, presumably an analysis can be done if requested, to allay any concerns of both myself and the Trust Board, who I was told at the last meeting by a Trust Rep, also discussed this issue but decided to take no action.
As if this proves to be an issue then it raises serious questions about the vote, most especially when seen with the one sided arguments by the Trust to push the recommended but very poor deal through.
If my comment is what you were referring to and I was incorrect on this then you merely needed to reply to my post to state this. That would have been very helpful as I think it is very important that members have accurate information.
Even though I had taken this information from the written explanation of a Trust rep on this very site, I would have happily immediately apologised for getting this wrong (if indeed as your comment suggested I had) and explained why (now detailed with evidence at the bottom of this post). Unfortunately I was once again immediately summarily banned after making those 2 posts.
It certainly was no agenda on my part. And if indeed that was what you were referring to, I would love you to state up front what you think my agenda is other than wanting an honest and open dialogue re Trust concerns and having a very similar view on the way the consultation was handled to the likes of Monmouth and Lisa. The former who went as far as saying that the Trust would clearly rather have sex with a bacon slicer than take legal action.
Otherwise if suggestions of an agenda are casually thrown, without any justification or substance (especially against someone who has raised a number of substantial evidenced concerns) then it is merely a deflective slur to detract from the substance of the solid and genuine concerns of that person, and becomes the territory of dishonest behaviour.
Let me make this perfectly clear, I have no connections with the clubs owners or officials past or present, nor with the club itself except as a season ticket holder — and I would think my forthright criticisms of same from well back would support this view. Neither do I have aspirations within the Trust Board beyond, (as many others) being more than willing to offer our help and skills (if they can be of any use to help move the Trust forward).
For instance at the last meeting before the vote (the one where my husband spoke to you about the abuse and bannings on here — and after which I found I had been banned again when I got home from the meeting).
At the very end of that meeting (where the Trust was strongly putting the case for the deal) you announced to the meeting to
remember not to listen to people who google stuff.
Now what was that meant to mean.
Given that was a slur frequently thrown at Shaky on this very site, it is not difficult to understand where that cryptic message may be coming from. It seemed like an act of desperation from a Trust that at all costs did not want the vote to go for legal action, by trying to dismiss and belittle those bringing up substantial issues and concerns re the deal.
Seemingly trying to rubbish the opinion of someone who had repeatedly been ahead of, and more accurate than the Trust, in terms of the issues and their implications (as had repeatedly been previously done on here against Shaky) just because they were against the deal, was a new low.
Off course you were also rubbishing Lisa’s advice too because as she said herself recently, both Shaky and herself were as one voice in relation to the deal.
As you know at that meeting many people had no doubt that the sellers would screw us over — but as said to me when I tried to highlight the many problems with the deal.
We have to believe in the Trust — and it was that blind faith, that was exploited. Along with the repeated false suggestions we would be going against Counsels advice if we rejected the deal.
Also at that meeting support was voiced for a suggestion of getting the wider supporter community involved in the vote and you immediately quashed this idea.
I am sorry Phil none of that seems like a person being unwillingly dragged along by the rest of the Trust Board. It speaks to me of someone strongly pushing the deal for all they could, despite the obvious pattern of behaviour towards us by the partners that deal was putting us into the hands of.
(this thread was based on concerns, that like in the earlier election, voting papers on the deal might not be numbered and would merely take the use of a prepaid envelope as evidence of entitlement to vote).
I took on board a fairly early comment from the Trust on this at the time (which seemed to clearly support the fact that indeed the envelopes would again be used as the proof of entitlement to vote) as a definitive answer. I recalled this as the OP was rightfully very concerned about the security issues this raised.
Later on in the thread it was bumped and a couple of posts were made suggesting more secure methods were being considered for the deal vote — however I had not picked these up. Nor was there anything subsequently that I had seen here to say that unique ballot paper numbering had been introduced).
Voting Papers on 19:31 - Jul 13 with 1119 views MattG
For the vote on the Offer / Legal Action, I understand the stipulation will be that voting papers have to be returned individually in the freepost envelopes provided.
Any papers returned in a different envelope will be deemed a "spoiled ballot" as will any multiple papers returned in a single freepost envelope.
Marvellous
Just to keep it simple
I was t referring to you. I wasn’t referring to Shaky. I’m Sorry to tell you that but the paranoia head needs to be put away on both those fronts. Neither of you occupy much time in my head and certainly not to remember many of your posts
As I told your husband at the last forum (I tried to tell you before you left in the middle of our conversation) I haven’t banned you and have no intention of banning you now or in the future. The only reason it was mentioned at the forum was because you decided to make that statement in an attempt to try and discredit me.
So for the voting forms and patterns. It’s a anonymous vote. Much like almost every vote of this kind
The trust board announced a cut off date for membership and put something in play to protect any photocopying of ballot papers. It appointed an independent person to count it who does the same with local elections and it gave contact details for members to contact him
As far as I know there was no mass joining before the vote to manipulate it but that’s a question for info@swanstrust.co.uk if you wish to raise it - as a member this is your right
Now at 516am I’m back to writing consultation papers that will spoil some people’s christmas. Father Christmas I ain’t
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
