| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:52 - Dec 31 with 3225 views | harryhpalmer |
Can any of our 'learned friends' with expertise in company law please tell us what the penalties are for breaching s248, s249, s355, s356, s359 - in particular if the so called meetings did not take place?
I can see penalties regrading fines for failing to keep records. but no mention of falsifying records.
This is related to the section in the Trust statement:
"...the Articles of Association of the football club were changed. These were changed during a meeting, chaired by Huw Jenkins, of the club’s board held on 21 July 2016. These changes had a significantly detrimental impact on the position of minority shareholders such as the Trust. The Trust has previously commented that we were not informed of these changes prior to them being filed at Companies House nor were our representatives a part of this board meeting. Given that the transfer of shares to complete the sale were also approved during this board meeting, we can only assume we were deliberately excluded.
It is worth noting that recent publicly reported events have called into question whether some meetings of the football club’s board, that are claimed to have taken place, actually did so with the appropriate directors in attendance. We are clear that the Trust representatives were not invited, nor did they attend, the board meeting on 21 July 2016. This is despite the Trust understanding that our Supporter’s Director Huw Cooze was listed in attendance. The Trust understands the same applies to Steve Penny and Donald Keefe at the very least." |  |
|  |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:58 - Dec 31 with 3179 views | Gowerjack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:38 - Dec 31 by ajmcglashan |
I have circulated to various media outlets so should get picked up by several of them shortly |
Iv'e sent to the Guardian as a response to Jenkins lies that they printed yesterday.
We need the national press to pick up on this not the lapdogs in Cardiff. |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:58 - Dec 31 with 3181 views | jacabertawe |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:52 - Dec 31 by harryhpalmer |
Can any of our 'learned friends' with expertise in company law please tell us what the penalties are for breaching s248, s249, s355, s356, s359 - in particular if the so called meetings did not take place?
I can see penalties regrading fines for failing to keep records. but no mention of falsifying records.
This is related to the section in the Trust statement:
"...the Articles of Association of the football club were changed. These were changed during a meeting, chaired by Huw Jenkins, of the club’s board held on 21 July 2016. These changes had a significantly detrimental impact on the position of minority shareholders such as the Trust. The Trust has previously commented that we were not informed of these changes prior to them being filed at Companies House nor were our representatives a part of this board meeting. Given that the transfer of shares to complete the sale were also approved during this board meeting, we can only assume we were deliberately excluded.
It is worth noting that recent publicly reported events have called into question whether some meetings of the football club’s board, that are claimed to have taken place, actually did so with the appropriate directors in attendance. We are clear that the Trust representatives were not invited, nor did they attend, the board meeting on 21 July 2016. This is despite the Trust understanding that our Supporter’s Director Huw Cooze was listed in attendance. The Trust understands the same applies to Steve Penny and Donald Keefe at the very least." |
Could this be made a sticky, such is its importance? |  |
| Britishness...is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish. - Gwynfor Evans
|
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:59 - Dec 31 with 3171 views | 34dfgdf54 |
<< The Supporters’ Trust today joins those calling for Huw Jenkins’ removal as Chairman of Swansea City Football Club >>
Get in there. Let’s get the scumbag and his mates out ASAP. |  | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:02 - Dec 31 with 3155 views | ajmcglashan |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:58 - Dec 31 by Gowerjack |
Iv'e sent to the Guardian as a response to Jenkins lies that they printed yesterday.
We need the national press to pick up on this not the lapdogs in Cardiff. |
It's been circulated to national papers not just welsh based media outlets don't worry | | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:02 - Dec 31 with 3151 views | Yossarian |
Well done to the Trust- as a Trust member this has restored my support for, and pride in the Organisation. Well done to Phil Sumbler for endorsing this statement- concrete proof, if it was ever needed that the right people work for the club in the right way.
As someone who voted for the sale, I now believe that Jenkins’ statement is a material change that should necessitate the Trust returning to its membership for a re-ballot on that decision. I would urge those not members to join and make your vote count.
I would also urge the Trust and the Supporters Alliance to join together to lobby the City if Swansea Council to halt negotiations to sell the lease on the Liberty Stadium to the American Consortium. |  |
| "Yossarian- the very sight of the name made him shudder.There were so many esses in it. It just had to be subversive" (Catch 22) |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:13 - Dec 31 with 3113 views | dobjack2 |
The board meeting of 21 July 2016 referred to is presumably the same one which walesOnline reported that Jenkins admitted in court that he could not remember having a meeting that day and that it was “unlikely” there would have been one. | | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:15 - Dec 31 with 3102 views | SkettyJack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:02 - Dec 31 by Yossarian |
Well done to the Trust- as a Trust member this has restored my support for, and pride in the Organisation. Well done to Phil Sumbler for endorsing this statement- concrete proof, if it was ever needed that the right people work for the club in the right way.
As someone who voted for the sale, I now believe that Jenkins’ statement is a material change that should necessitate the Trust returning to its membership for a re-ballot on that decision. I would urge those not members to join and make your vote count.
I would also urge the Trust and the Supporters Alliance to join together to lobby the City if Swansea Council to halt negotiations to sell the lease on the Liberty Stadium to the American Consortium. |
I'm with you. This is definite material change | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:16 - Dec 31 with 3094 views | Dr_Winston |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:02 - Dec 31 by Yossarian |
Well done to the Trust- as a Trust member this has restored my support for, and pride in the Organisation. Well done to Phil Sumbler for endorsing this statement- concrete proof, if it was ever needed that the right people work for the club in the right way.
As someone who voted for the sale, I now believe that Jenkins’ statement is a material change that should necessitate the Trust returning to its membership for a re-ballot on that decision. I would urge those not members to join and make your vote count.
I would also urge the Trust and the Supporters Alliance to join together to lobby the City if Swansea Council to halt negotiations to sell the lease on the Liberty Stadium to the American Consortium. |
Your last sentence is something that definitely needs to happen. If any kind of fire is going to be lit under Kaplan and co about dealing with the Jenkins situation it's putting their financial plans under threat.
Only problem is I'd imagine the rental money is already being earmarked by the council for other uses. Speedbumps somewhere maybe. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:19 - Dec 31 with 3075 views | Cooperman |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:48 - Dec 31 by AguycalledJack |
Soooooooooooooo, reading that, there seems enough evidence to suggest that legal action would have succeeded.
Are the trust still willing to force through the deal or will there be a re-think?
Congratulations on the statement. This needs to be on all social media though, as reading face book yesterday there are still those who support Jenkins and his mates. |
Re your first line - I formed the same opinion. |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:20 - Dec 31 with 3057 views | Watchman |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:16 - Dec 31 by Dr_Winston |
Your last sentence is something that definitely needs to happen. If any kind of fire is going to be lit under Kaplan and co about dealing with the Jenkins situation it's putting their financial plans under threat.
Only problem is I'd imagine the rental money is already being earmarked by the council for other uses. Speedbumps somewhere maybe. |
Lot of ST Holders in the Council. Questions need to be asked |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:30 - Dec 31 with 3009 views | monmouth |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:19 - Dec 31 by Cooperman |
Re your first line - I formed the same opinion. |
It is possible now that the vote should boil down to a simple choice of pros and cons of only two choices. Retain shareholding and involvement, or push for full share value and no involvement. If the former then the full 21% is the only powerful option, as any other deal will lead to drag along rights.
So the question is, continued involvement as a noisy neighbour, or as much cash as we can get for the full shareholding (as I understand it, or maybe don’t understand it, even failed legal action would leave us with the 21%).
Therefore this deal should be off the table no matter what. Keep 21% or take legal should be the only two choices now.
I was all for legal, but now I’m really starting to see some nuisance value in the 21% in perpetuity. I guess that leaves us open to dilution though. Anyway, as I say, pros and cons, but surely the stance must be no deal now. [Post edited 31 Dec 2017 10:31]
|  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:34 - Dec 31 with 2977 views | Gowerjack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:30 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
It is possible now that the vote should boil down to a simple choice of pros and cons of only two choices. Retain shareholding and involvement, or push for full share value and no involvement. If the former then the full 21% is the only powerful option, as any other deal will lead to drag along rights.
So the question is, continued involvement as a noisy neighbour, or as much cash as we can get for the full shareholding (as I understand it, or maybe don’t understand it, even failed legal action would leave us with the 21%).
Therefore this deal should be off the table no matter what. Keep 21% or take legal should be the only two choices now.
I was all for legal, but now I’m really starting to see some nuisance value in the 21% in perpetuity. I guess that leaves us open to dilution though. Anyway, as I say, pros and cons, but surely the stance must be no deal now. [Post edited 31 Dec 2017 10:31]
|
Go legal.
Hopefully win the case.
Bank the money 'cos the rainy day ain't far off...
It's the only sensible option
It's always been the only sensible option... | |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:36 - Dec 31 with 2967 views | derijack |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:30 - Dec 31 by monmouth |
It is possible now that the vote should boil down to a simple choice of pros and cons of only two choices. Retain shareholding and involvement, or push for full share value and no involvement. If the former then the full 21% is the only powerful option, as any other deal will lead to drag along rights.
So the question is, continued involvement as a noisy neighbour, or as much cash as we can get for the full shareholding (as I understand it, or maybe don’t understand it, even failed legal action would leave us with the 21%).
Therefore this deal should be off the table no matter what. Keep 21% or take legal should be the only two choices now.
I was all for legal, but now I’m really starting to see some nuisance value in the 21% in perpetuity. I guess that leaves us open to dilution though. Anyway, as I say, pros and cons, but surely the stance must be no deal now. [Post edited 31 Dec 2017 10:31]
|
I’m torn with this to be honest. Part of me wants the trust to be a continued thorn in the Americans side. But.. A part of me also wants to sell the whole 21% and wait for the inevitable to happen and buy the club back in a few years.. which may be a more sensible long term plan? | |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:48 - Dec 31 with 2905 views | Smellyplumz |
Now take them to court. |  |
|
""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." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:59 - Dec 31 with 2855 views | TheResurrection |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:15 - Dec 31 by Dr_Winston |
Finally, some balls. |
Exactly.
Ten years too late |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:05 - Dec 31 with 2829 views | IAN05 |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:59 - Dec 31 by TheResurrection |
Exactly.
Ten years too late |
At least they have now done it though. We all now need to unite in the fight against HJ and the gang from here as the club needs rid of these people and what they have done. | | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:18 - Dec 31 with 2783 views | E20Jack |
Stunning statement, so refreshing I can type the following words after a Trust action....
Excellent work, that is EXACTLY how to represent a fanbase. |  |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:23 - Dec 31 with 2761 views | TheResurrection |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:05 - Dec 31 by IAN05 |
At least they have now done it though. We all now need to unite in the fight against HJ and the gang from here as the club needs rid of these people and what they have done. |
No Ian, that's not it is it, mate....
At least they've done it now but failed us for ten years??
Come on mate, that sort of statement has been needed throughout. It just isn't good enough and never has been. No excuses and no brushing under the carpet. | |
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:28 - Dec 31 with 2734 views | IAN05 |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 11:23 - Dec 31 by TheResurrection |
No Ian, that's not it is it, mate....
At least they've done it now but failed us for ten years??
Come on mate, that sort of statement has been needed throughout. It just isn't good enough and never has been. No excuses and no brushing under the carpet. |
Not much we can do about fact they haven't done so previously, other than change the board and apply pressure to learn lessons.
Fact remains though that HJ has not only shafted the fans shareholdings but also acted I'm morally in the sale and at best incompetently in his governance of the football club - a key responsibility of a chairman of the board of directors | | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 12:03 - Dec 31 with 2641 views | BarrySwan |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 09:48 - Dec 31 by AguycalledJack |
Soooooooooooooo, reading that, there seems enough evidence to suggest that legal action would have succeeded.
Are the trust still willing to force through the deal or will there be a re-think?
Congratulations on the statement. This needs to be on all social media though, as reading face book yesterday there are still those who support Jenkins and his mates. |
Yes it does make it all the more odd that the trust supported a partial piecemeal sale of shares and reinvestment in the ground piece of nonsense rather than take up their concerns with legal action. | | | |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 12:24 - Dec 31 with 2590 views | Private_Partz |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 10:36 - Dec 31 by derijack |
I’m torn with this to be honest. Part of me wants the trust to be a continued thorn in the Americans side. But.. A part of me also wants to sell the whole 21% and wait for the inevitable to happen and buy the club back in a few years.. which may be a more sensible long term plan? |
With Jenkins on the run we need to be ready to open a direct dialogue with the Yanks.
After all we share the same objectives, just very different reasons. Namely the Yanks want to protect and develop their ' investment ' for a sell on that benefits the Hedge Fund.
We on other hand want to maintain our status and be financially solvent in doing so. [Post edited 31 Dec 2017 12:30]
|  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Trust response to Jenkins’ interview. on 12:28 - Dec 31 with 2568 views | Dewi1jack |
To the Trust board who put this statement together.
Well done to you all.
Now it needs to be publicised as far and wide as possible.
I voted against Legal, rejoining just to try and stop you giving the cash from a bad deal back to Jase and Stevie boy.
Was starting to think I'd wasted a tenner. Would definitely have been my last.
Now the Trust is finally growing a pair and representing the fans, then let's see it grow
Now I urge yet again, people to join/ rejoin the Trust and take these self serving b'stards to Court.
If Beaky and the ex board/ present board have broken regulations then let's get them reported- gloves off time.
Still can't believe there are people defending Beaky and the ex board.
Wonder what it's going to take for them to wake up
Noticeable that one or two have changed sides again (against the ex board), but are still attacking the Trust.
We are proud fans.
let's be united in ensuring that our club is still around for our children/ grandchildren/ great grandchildren and beyond
Swansea Till I die! |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
