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 renewing trust membership? on 23:36 - Aug 18 by Uxbridge
You're right, the Trust board was concerned at the lack of speed of the Gylfi sale, and that was expressed recently to the other shareholders. Of course, since then, he's gone.
Not sure putting that statement out to the public would be a particularly clever commercial decision. If anything, it gives the buying club more power in the negotiation.
Good that there's actually those lines of communication, which wouldn't be the case without a shareholding, director, other channels etc.
Ah right so the trust pushed through the siggy sale but couldn't do anything about reducing the price of the sampdoria tickets or the price on the disabled parking..... Aye right o.
[Post edited 18 Aug 2017 23:49]
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make."
Who is renewing trust membership? on 23:43 - Aug 18 by Smellyplumz
Ah right so the trust pushed through the siggy sale but couldn't do anything about reducing the price of the sampdoria tickets or the price on the disabled parking..... Aye right o.
[Post edited 18 Aug 2017 23:49]
I didn't say the Trust pushed through the sale. I didn't even hint it.
True, the Trust didn't get what wanted for the Sampdoria price.
Not sure what the disabled parking issue is (holidays etc) but if its purely to do with pricing then I recall discussing this with Ian (our DSA chair) at the last forum and he pointed out that the equalities act is exactly that... Equality. There are two separate issues - price and access. Everyone should have equal access and equal pricing, regardless of anything else.
Who is renewing trust membership? on 23:49 - Aug 18 by Uxbridge
I didn't say the Trust pushed through the sale. I didn't even hint it.
True, the Trust didn't get what wanted for the Sampdoria price.
Not sure what the disabled parking issue is (holidays etc) but if its purely to do with pricing then I recall discussing this with Ian (our DSA chair) at the last forum and he pointed out that the equalities act is exactly that... Equality. There are two separate issues - price and access. Everyone should have equal access and equal pricing, regardless of anything else.
Yes you did or it certainly comes across like that, read your post again I have.
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make."
Who is renewing trust membership? on 23:49 - Aug 18 by Uxbridge
I didn't say the Trust pushed through the sale. I didn't even hint it.
True, the Trust didn't get what wanted for the Sampdoria price.
Not sure what the disabled parking issue is (holidays etc) but if its purely to do with pricing then I recall discussing this with Ian (our DSA chair) at the last forum and he pointed out that the equalities act is exactly that... Equality. There are two separate issues - price and access. Everyone should have equal access and equal pricing, regardless of anything else.
Hideous,absolutely hideous. There's no reason why people that have to park in the stadium should pay the same as people that don't have to park in the stadium. It doesn't happen in council owned car parks around Swansea and there's no reason it should be happen at the Liberty.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Who is renewing trust membership? on 23:46 - Aug 18 by TheResurrection
I was told the lines of communication were limited and extremely frustrating.
We are 13 days before the window shuts, we've played one, the second is tomorrow and still we're miles behind.
Everyone at the Club was urging the Americans to get it done, but nothing.
Why?
I agree. It went on too long.
On the sale part, you have two conflicts.. Wanting to get it done quickly, and wanting to get the best price. Timing wasn't great though.
As for the success or failure of this window, ultimately that'll be judged on September 1. We need signings though, that's painfully clear. Can't say I'm not concerned though but I don't think anyone at the club thinks we don't need to buy either.
Who is renewing trust membership? on 22:07 - Aug 18 by londonlisa2001
Matt. I also respect your point of view, but in my opinion and as I've said on a number of occasions, the number one aim of the Trust was to guarantee the permanent existence of a professional football club in Swansea.
The only way of doing that is (a) to own enough shares that the club can be protected from the worst excesses of the owners or (b) have enough money in the bank to purchase enough of the club in the future to achieve (a).
The worst excesses of the owners include the dilution and debt raising mentioned, they can now dilute the trust and raise debt in the club and the Trust can't prevent it.
In addition, the club can be sold to whoever and the Trust will not only be unable to prevent the sale, but will also be unable to prevent the sale of the Trust shares so that there will be no oversight over what anyone may do.
Forgive me, I completely respect the time given by you and others, time that I have not given, but I don't believe it's disingenuous to mention these things. I do believe it may be somewhat disingenuous to say that just because dividends were not declared last year, nor debt raised as yet, nor Trust shares diluted that somehow the aims stated have been achieved since the majority owners could do all three tomorrow and there's sod all the Trust could do about it.
Surely the £6m or whatever it ends up being gives a level of protection against dilution - certainly more than the <£1m currently in the bank - if we wanted to go that way. And is the risk of debt being raised against the Club any greater as a result of this deal than it was before?
Aside from a potentially different valuation (which could be higher or lower), I don't see a huge material difference between drag rights and the Americans being forced to buy our shares as a result of legal action and then selling on to someone else.
Disappointed you haven't acknowledged my points regarding Dineen and the additional representative on the Board.
0
Who is renewing trust membership? on 23:57 - Aug 18 with 1205 views
Who is renewing trust membership? on 23:36 - Aug 18 by Uxbridge
You're right, the Trust board was concerned at the lack of speed of the Gylfi sale, and that was expressed recently to the other shareholders. Of course, since then, he's gone.
Not sure putting that statement out to the public would be a particularly clever commercial decision. If anything, it gives the buying club more power in the negotiation.
Good that there's actually those lines of communication, which wouldn't be the case without a shareholding, director, other channels etc.
Unless you mean that the trusts concerns over Gylfi actually sped up the sale then your first paragraph is comedy gold!
Which in turn means the rest of it is as well! I ain't laughing though.
0
Who is renewing trust membership? on 00:08 - Aug 19 with 1167 views
Who is renewing trust membership? on 23:56 - Aug 18 by Uxbridge
I agree. It went on too long.
On the sale part, you have two conflicts.. Wanting to get it done quickly, and wanting to get the best price. Timing wasn't great though.
As for the success or failure of this window, ultimately that'll be judged on September 1. We need signings though, that's painfully clear. Can't say I'm not concerned though but I don't think anyone at the club thinks we don't need to buy either.
I'm sorry but this episode has left a lot of people very worried.
Where are the lessons learned from last season?
The ridiculous strategy in holding out for relative peanuts in the grand scheme of things, especially when clubs with players we are seeking are asking £5m-£10m more than they previously would have AND the fact there is £150m on the line for staying in the league, was plain bastard stupid.
This has shown everyone on the inside and outside that the lines of communication are very limited and downright dangerous and puts a whole different perspective on the part sale of shares.
The Americans didn't listen to advice for 5/6 weeks, and with the Trust marginalising themselves even more, this will only get worse and worse.
We've seen a glimpse of their stubbornness and naivety when it comes to football planning. This is extremely worrying.
Are you going to have a major rethink on the proposition recently put to the members?
* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM
I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Who is renewing trust membership? on 23:56 - Aug 18 by MattG
Surely the £6m or whatever it ends up being gives a level of protection against dilution - certainly more than the <£1m currently in the bank - if we wanted to go that way. And is the risk of debt being raised against the Club any greater as a result of this deal than it was before?
Aside from a potentially different valuation (which could be higher or lower), I don't see a huge material difference between drag rights and the Americans being forced to buy our shares as a result of legal action and then selling on to someone else.
Disappointed you haven't acknowledged my points regarding Dineen and the additional representative on the Board.
Firstly I don't care about Dineen. Sorry. But for me it's irrelevant.
Secondly, some one observing a board meeting isn't a second director. It's someone observing a board meeting. If they can't vote, it's irrelevant.
That's why I didn't mention them.
Not sure why the £6m is being seen as a protection against being diluted to be honest. The Trust has sold shares so they may or may not buy some more? But as I've said before, the dilution issue should only be looked at as dilution of value not %. And while the Trust retained the ability to take legal action against unfair prejudice, the majority could never dilute value as it is automatic prejudice against a minority.
And, no, the risk of debt is the same.
You seem to misunderstand my points. As I said, if these things couldn't be achieved (protection), then the only protection left was to take as much money as possible to gain protection if necessary in the future. I wasn't suggesting that the status quo was any good. I was just saying the deal was not giving any of the things (or, what to me are the important things), the Trust had said it needed.
I don't think legal action would have resulted in the court room but a better deal. The Trust board presumably did not think the Americans would budge an inch from their stated 'final position'. We'll never know though so it is what it is. Tell you what though, we never did get that £50m for Gylfi did we...
Edited to add- sorry, meant to say, the difference with the drag rights is the Trust aren't the ones establishing the price. The job of the Trust in my mind is to protect if it all goes wrong, I.e, if we are relegated and a forced sale happens. If all goes swimmingly well, then the value increases and we're all happy aren't we? The Trust's job isn't to speculate, it's as a safety net. Just my opinion.
[Post edited 19 Aug 2017 0:30]
4
Who is renewing trust membership? on 00:39 - Aug 19 with 1121 views
Who is renewing trust membership? on 00:09 - Aug 19 by londonlisa2001
Firstly I don't care about Dineen. Sorry. But for me it's irrelevant.
Secondly, some one observing a board meeting isn't a second director. It's someone observing a board meeting. If they can't vote, it's irrelevant.
That's why I didn't mention them.
Not sure why the £6m is being seen as a protection against being diluted to be honest. The Trust has sold shares so they may or may not buy some more? But as I've said before, the dilution issue should only be looked at as dilution of value not %. And while the Trust retained the ability to take legal action against unfair prejudice, the majority could never dilute value as it is automatic prejudice against a minority.
And, no, the risk of debt is the same.
You seem to misunderstand my points. As I said, if these things couldn't be achieved (protection), then the only protection left was to take as much money as possible to gain protection if necessary in the future. I wasn't suggesting that the status quo was any good. I was just saying the deal was not giving any of the things (or, what to me are the important things), the Trust had said it needed.
I don't think legal action would have resulted in the court room but a better deal. The Trust board presumably did not think the Americans would budge an inch from their stated 'final position'. We'll never know though so it is what it is. Tell you what though, we never did get that £50m for Gylfi did we...
Edited to add- sorry, meant to say, the difference with the drag rights is the Trust aren't the ones establishing the price. The job of the Trust in my mind is to protect if it all goes wrong, I.e, if we are relegated and a forced sale happens. If all goes swimmingly well, then the value increases and we're all happy aren't we? The Trust's job isn't to speculate, it's as a safety net. Just my opinion.
[Post edited 19 Aug 2017 0:30]
Another excellent post Lisa, Doffs cap!
Common sense again.
0
Who is renewing trust membership? on 00:48 - Aug 19 with 1107 views
Who is renewing trust membership? on 00:08 - Aug 19 by TheResurrection
I'm sorry but this episode has left a lot of people very worried.
Where are the lessons learned from last season?
The ridiculous strategy in holding out for relative peanuts in the grand scheme of things, especially when clubs with players we are seeking are asking £5m-£10m more than they previously would have AND the fact there is £150m on the line for staying in the league, was plain bastard stupid.
This has shown everyone on the inside and outside that the lines of communication are very limited and downright dangerous and puts a whole different perspective on the part sale of shares.
The Americans didn't listen to advice for 5/6 weeks, and with the Trust marginalising themselves even more, this will only get worse and worse.
We've seen a glimpse of their stubbornness and naivety when it comes to football planning. This is extremely worrying.
Are you going to have a major rethink on the proposition recently put to the members?
If there's a breakdown in the relationship, or the negotiations don't go well, then we'd have to.
Lesa for election? Or for that matter the res It takes bottle, some will, some won't but it's wrong to continually run down those that put their heads above the parapet
0
Who is renewing trust membership? on 01:16 - Aug 19 with 1088 views
Am I the only one who can't help thinking while reading this thread, that Lisa has her finger right on the pulse and has so much more understanding of the complexities of this situation, than any of the current trust board members. Certainly more than those that have come on here to defend what they, have encouraged to happen regards the outcome of the vote.
The trust in my humble opinion, is no longer fit for purpose, plain and simple.
I do not say that with any hint of pleasuse or with any disrespect meant or intended, to those who have given up their time to do their best.In fact it it is said with great sadness indeed. I, like a few have also mentioned, truely believe the sell outs /yanks have something over certain trust members. Maybe one day it will all come out in the wash as they say and it will all make some sort of sense.....
Edited to add, that I also will NOT be rejoining the trust membership. I was keen to at one stage even in light of the Cooze fiasco, but now this latest "voting persuasion" I just can not bring myself to rejoin, as to me to do so would be seen as supporting the trust board, which I sadly Don't!
[Post edited 19 Aug 2017 1:23]
2
Who is renewing trust membership? on 01:27 - Aug 19 with 1075 views
Who is renewing trust membership? on 09:10 - Aug 18 by Pegojack
I agree.
There's more to come in this story, the next fight will be that the owners will be asking the Trust to divi up the cash for stadium expansion. NO WAY.
I respect the views of all those who are saying in this thread that they are not renewing, but remember, boys and girls, you are walking away, so please don't come on here moaning in the future, the people who remain to carry on the fight are not interested in the views of those carping from the sidelines.
Not an ounce of 'fight' in the Trust, the owners will take the mick again in such a scenario
0
Who is renewing trust membership? on 08:05 - Aug 19 with 984 views
One of the main reasons that I voted against legal action, is that the action would have been against the club and not the previous owners.Many have expressed their dissatisfaction with the result of the vote because they believe the previous owners 'have got away with it'. They would have 'got away with it ' even if the case had been fought and won , so that argument couldn't hold for me.The only victory for legal action was money.The sale of all the Trusts shares at the same price realised by the previous owners. The offer on the table to the Trust is I believe far more interesting.Initially the sale of the £5m shares makes no difference to the legal position of the Trust in respect of their input as shareholders into their rights (and lack of them) in respect of the club's affairs whatsoever. The fact that they have been promised involvement for the foseeable future is a plus as is the longer term commitment to purchase additional shares albeit at the same price which is what they would receive as a result of legal action any way. If the Americans sell their shares it is likely to be at a profit.The Trust would also sell for that profit.If this was not a condition, then the Trust would be left with worthless shares for there would be no rights of action against the new new owners. The worst scenario is that the club gets relegated , there is a fire sale, and the Trust's remaining shares become almost worthless.At least the Trust will still have £5m more in those circumstances than they would have had otherwise.
Who is renewing trust membership? on 00:09 - Aug 19 by londonlisa2001
Firstly I don't care about Dineen. Sorry. But for me it's irrelevant.
Secondly, some one observing a board meeting isn't a second director. It's someone observing a board meeting. If they can't vote, it's irrelevant.
That's why I didn't mention them.
Not sure why the £6m is being seen as a protection against being diluted to be honest. The Trust has sold shares so they may or may not buy some more? But as I've said before, the dilution issue should only be looked at as dilution of value not %. And while the Trust retained the ability to take legal action against unfair prejudice, the majority could never dilute value as it is automatic prejudice against a minority.
And, no, the risk of debt is the same.
You seem to misunderstand my points. As I said, if these things couldn't be achieved (protection), then the only protection left was to take as much money as possible to gain protection if necessary in the future. I wasn't suggesting that the status quo was any good. I was just saying the deal was not giving any of the things (or, what to me are the important things), the Trust had said it needed.
I don't think legal action would have resulted in the court room but a better deal. The Trust board presumably did not think the Americans would budge an inch from their stated 'final position'. We'll never know though so it is what it is. Tell you what though, we never did get that £50m for Gylfi did we...
Edited to add- sorry, meant to say, the difference with the drag rights is the Trust aren't the ones establishing the price. The job of the Trust in my mind is to protect if it all goes wrong, I.e, if we are relegated and a forced sale happens. If all goes swimmingly well, then the value increases and we're all happy aren't we? The Trust's job isn't to speculate, it's as a safety net. Just my opinion.
[Post edited 19 Aug 2017 0:30]
I'm not much bothered about Dineen either but it was you that raised the "demand" about no Shareholder with <5% being on the Board. Dineen was put back on the Board in November, the Trust objected and he was removed. I also remember the outcry on here when it happened which suggests that some felt much more strongly about it than either of us.
I take your point about the Observer / second Director but, for me, the distinction is pretty much moot in any case - given the way the voting rights have been carved up, a second vote around the table isn't going to count for a great deal.
My point on dilution was simply that, if it chooses to, a fund of £6m gives the Trust more power to buy shares and prevent or minimise dilution than <£1m. Also, my understanding is that, by taking the deal, the Trust waives its right to legal action on the original UP case relating to the sale but not any UP case arising out of the future actions of the Owners.
The rest of it comes down to the strong case / possibility of losing argument that has been done to death previously. Suffice to say I'm probably more risk-averse than some on that one!
[Post edited 19 Aug 2017 8:27]
0
Who is renewing trust membership? on 09:00 - Aug 19 with 929 views
Who is renewing trust membership? on 08:25 - Aug 19 by MattG
I'm not much bothered about Dineen either but it was you that raised the "demand" about no Shareholder with <5% being on the Board. Dineen was put back on the Board in November, the Trust objected and he was removed. I also remember the outcry on here when it happened which suggests that some felt much more strongly about it than either of us.
I take your point about the Observer / second Director but, for me, the distinction is pretty much moot in any case - given the way the voting rights have been carved up, a second vote around the table isn't going to count for a great deal.
My point on dilution was simply that, if it chooses to, a fund of £6m gives the Trust more power to buy shares and prevent or minimise dilution than <£1m. Also, my understanding is that, by taking the deal, the Trust waives its right to legal action on the original UP case relating to the sale but not any UP case arising out of the future actions of the Owners.
The rest of it comes down to the strong case / possibility of losing argument that has been done to death previously. Suffice to say I'm probably more risk-averse than some on that one!
[Post edited 19 Aug 2017 8:27]
That right, the second director/observer distinction is irrelevant due to the overwhelming voting advantage.
What's interesting about it is I distinctly recall Jenkins commenting when news of the takeover first broke that the the Trust would get a second directorship and basically be satisfied with that.
As with siggy, Levin's hardball negotiation tactics improved on that, but Jenkins had clearly correctly read the Trust board's main motivation; vanity.
A question for Lisa and Shaky.You both believed in legal action, possibly Lisa with a view to extracting a better deal along the way. Why? What would legal action, with all its uncertainties have given the Trust which the present deal does not.
The other point worth making is that the verdict here was largely a foregone conclusion.
The electorate had already undergone a process of natural selection whereby supporters who were actually paying attention were aware of the abuses and incompetence of the Trust board and had long since voted with their feet in disgust.
With a few notable exceptions like herefordjack and joebradshaw that leaves a group of voters who i am sorry to say are too fcuking stupid to be in charge of an investment worth +£20 million.
Maybe the morons will get lucky again; that doesn't change the underlying dynamic, however.
Who is renewing trust membership? on 09:00 - Aug 19 by Shaky
That right, the second director/observer distinction is irrelevant due to the overwhelming voting advantage.
What's interesting about it is I distinctly recall Jenkins commenting when news of the takeover first broke that the the Trust would get a second directorship and basically be satisfied with that.
As with siggy, Levin's hardball negotiation tactics improved on that, but Jenkins had clearly correctly read the Trust board's main motivation; vanity.
Alternatively, it could be seen that, regardless of the current voting situation, there is some benefit to a second voice (and a second pair of eyes / ears) in the Boardroom, even if only from a "check and balance" perspective.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
