| Could the trust be doomed? 15:16 - Nov 6 with 26056 views | NOTRAC |
I am not sure about this, but because of the way the ownership of the shares in Swansea City have actually been made, it might be that two "owners" could allow the American investors virtual control of the Club, without recourse to the present Board of Directors, the Trust,or the remaining shareholders.
We are often told that Martin Morgan and his wife own 225,000 shares in the club and that Brian Ketzon owns 200,000 shares which together equate to 50% of the total shares issued.
In fact they actually own no shares at all.The shares are owned by Oth Limited (225,000 shares) and Five Thirty Limited (161216shares) and T L R Investments Limited (38784shares)
It can be assumed therefore that Oth Limited is owned by Martin Morgan and his wife, and the other two companies by Brian Ketzon and family.
Without knowing of any legal restrictions,both Martin Morgan and Brian Ketzon could sell their shares in Oth Limited, Five Thirty Limited and T L R Investments Limited without any recourse to Swansea City Football Club and let in the Americans through the back door.The shares as such would not have changed hands, they are still owned by the same Companies (where incidentally they are shown as investments on the Balance Sheets of those Companies), it is just that the Americans have control of those shares.
If the above is legally feasible, then the Americans could contain absolute control by buying in exactly the same way the shares allegedly owned by Dineen but which are in fact owned by Bulk Vending Limited and Van Zweden whose shares are owned by Swansea Jacks Limited.
If the above scenario was possible,and I know of no reason why legally it is not, then the Trust would be powerless to stop it, and would receive nothing for their shares
I would hope there are provisions in place to stop the above happening, otherwise the Trust could be doomed. |  |
| |  |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 00:50 - Nov 9 with 1457 views | Witneyjack |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 00:43 - Nov 9 by _ |
A bit of a cop out isn't it? |
Ah! Another reference to my job. Perhaps that's your issue with me ? Just for the record, I have been on this forum from day one, was on Jackarmy.net for many years and have openly spoken about it. Very proud about it too! So it's not news to anybody, so why do you feel the need to keep mentioning it?
You keep banging on to others about making a constructive contribution to threads, but your habit of dismissing those with a different viewpoint to yours out of hand is hardly constructive is it? |  | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 00:51 - Nov 9 with 1450 views | _ |
Oh definitely, what would you do... Carry on with the £91k to the company plus salary or the £5m lump sum?
Hey... Maybe they want both? |  |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 00:52 - Nov 9 with 1442 views | _ |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 00:50 - Nov 9 by Witneyjack |
Ah! Another reference to my job. Perhaps that's your issue with me ? Just for the record, I have been on this forum from day one, was on Jackarmy.net for many years and have openly spoken about it. Very proud about it too! So it's not news to anybody, so why do you feel the need to keep mentioning it?
You keep banging on to others about making a constructive contribution to threads, but your habit of dismissing those with a different viewpoint to yours out of hand is hardly constructive is it? |
Haha I swear to god that was the last thing on my mind there...
So you are police? Nothing wrong with that whatsoever... | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 01:06 - Nov 9 with 1420 views | JackToff |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 00:41 - Nov 9 by Witneyjack |
I thought we were discussing the point. I still can't see the link to the alleged takeover but you are entitled to your opinion. I certainly didn't just write you off and become dismissive of you. |
You were already discussing that very subject with others before I made my comment at which point it seems the subject suddenly became irrelevant which is rather contradictory. So yes it seemed fairly dismissive to me, especially as getting VFM most especially in the Commercial role can make the difference between needing and not needing "investment".
But as I said a small example in comparison with some of the stuff on here. | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 01:06 - Nov 9 with 1420 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 00:42 - Nov 9 by _ |
Well ok, let's go for it... That he doesn't know how his arse from his elbow.
Qualify that one! |
fine.
It is apparent from points that are made in his posts that he doesn't have the level of specific expertise that he claims he does. He may well have a background in corporate finance (although he stated on here in the past that he left that world in 2000 ish and in the famous posts about his book collection, they were all dated from a time that would be consistent with that statement) and he may well do some advisory work now.
However, it is obvious from his remarks at times that his expertise lies outside the area of UK companies, and in particular UK privately owned companies. His references are sometime incomplete, sometimes too simplistic for situations being discussed, sometimes skewed towards US regulations (which as Dav says are often very similar, but are not always the same) and sometimes just wrong.
He has admitted himself that his background covers some of Eastern Europe, Germany and the US (he said Delaware). Given the mention of Delaware that gives quite a good indication of the types of businesses he is familiar with. His statements about corporate structures and financing structures also indicates the same thing. I have spent a great deal of time in Wilmington myself in the past so know exactly what that particular part of the US specialises in.
From remarks that he has made, I believe that he has no direct, recent experience of either being a party to a UK private company shareholders' agreement nor indeed has advised a party to one. I also don't believe that he has recently advised UK publicly listed corporates either.
Incidentally, I don't see any reason for any of this to preclude people getting involved, giving advice, etc etc. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. Also, contrary to what you may think, I find him quite amusing. However, I don't understand his utter conviction that there are not people either on here, or advising the Trust, that don't have rather more in the way of specific, relevant expertise. | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 01:52 - Nov 9 with 1400 views | _ |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 01:06 - Nov 9 by londonlisa2001 |
fine.
It is apparent from points that are made in his posts that he doesn't have the level of specific expertise that he claims he does. He may well have a background in corporate finance (although he stated on here in the past that he left that world in 2000 ish and in the famous posts about his book collection, they were all dated from a time that would be consistent with that statement) and he may well do some advisory work now.
However, it is obvious from his remarks at times that his expertise lies outside the area of UK companies, and in particular UK privately owned companies. His references are sometime incomplete, sometimes too simplistic for situations being discussed, sometimes skewed towards US regulations (which as Dav says are often very similar, but are not always the same) and sometimes just wrong.
He has admitted himself that his background covers some of Eastern Europe, Germany and the US (he said Delaware). Given the mention of Delaware that gives quite a good indication of the types of businesses he is familiar with. His statements about corporate structures and financing structures also indicates the same thing. I have spent a great deal of time in Wilmington myself in the past so know exactly what that particular part of the US specialises in.
From remarks that he has made, I believe that he has no direct, recent experience of either being a party to a UK private company shareholders' agreement nor indeed has advised a party to one. I also don't believe that he has recently advised UK publicly listed corporates either.
Incidentally, I don't see any reason for any of this to preclude people getting involved, giving advice, etc etc. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. Also, contrary to what you may think, I find him quite amusing. However, I don't understand his utter conviction that there are not people either on here, or advising the Trust, that don't have rather more in the way of specific, relevant expertise. |
Who would you think he advises, Lisa?
Was the trombone player playing live?? | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 03:30 - Nov 9 with 1373 views | Davillin |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:44 - Nov 8 by trampie |
I have heard it said in some quarters that they were treated so well by their Welsh employers that they wanted to take their name ?, then on the other hand you hear a totally different story. |
The history of names for slaves is a longer story than that, and sometimes approaching unsavory.
Almost invariably they had little choice in their own names, and being given their owner's surname was merely a way of identifying them as his property. |  |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 07:05 - Nov 9 with 1334 views | trampie |
But the story from a Welsh perspective in some cases might not fit the norm. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Could the trust be doomed? on 07:54 - Nov 9 with 1317 views | Dr_Winston |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 23:24 - Nov 8 by JackToff |
Presume these jobs were competitively tendered?
In a small close group what prevents the internal tender from getting inside information on the other tenders giving them a massive advantage so they can marginally undercut them to get the job?
Similar with recruitment say for the commercial role - what protections were put into place to get the best, most qualified person for the job? |
Glad someone asked that question. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 08:00 - Nov 9 with 1313 views | DDCH |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 03:30 - Nov 9 by Davillin |
The history of names for slaves is a longer story than that, and sometimes approaching unsavory.
Almost invariably they had little choice in their own names, and being given their owner's surname was merely a way of identifying them as his property. |
Interesting article regarding the Welsh connection
http://www.data-wales.co.uk/plantations.htm |  |
| The poster formally known as DannyDyersChocolateHomunculus
|
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:00 - Nov 9 with 1273 views | trampie |
What was I saying, lots of Welsh anti slavery, lots of Welsh liked, common ground in religión.
Dont fall for the Anglo spin on history. | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:14 - Nov 9 with 1261 views | Phil_S |
So many interesting questions in one thread (well, in several) but some observations and comments
1. The work undertaken by directors that they are paid for. I can't comment on them all as I don't know the circumstances involved but I know that Huw for example has been involved in the programme for far longer than he has been a Trust director. Add to that the endless things he designs and gets printed I know he is competitive and effectively has to tender every year. If he gets inside information as to what to tender then I would question as to why he has lost certain jobs that he used to do but that is for him to defend more but there certainly isn't - in my view any issues with all of this.
2. Trust advice - We have advice from a group of people who I believe are more than adequately qualified to give the advice that we need in this situation being discussed. I understand from them the legal position we find ourselves in and when we have information to share then - as mentioned before - we will head into consultation with our members.
3. Going back to point 1 above, I'm not sure the discussion point is relevant at this moment in time any more than when it has been raised on here before. What matters at the moment is that we all work together for the good of the football club and it's long term future. We have worked too hard in the past 12/13 years to see all that disappear down the drain at the first opportunity. I think at the Trust we are fortunate not to be blinded by the sums that get talked about and are certainly all down a route of wanting the long term future of the club protected. We know the stadium needs expanding, we know that it shouldn't come at the expense of the playing budget so there needs to be different ways to fund it. That is not to say that the private sale of the club will do it but there needs to be a way somehow but again it has to be the best way
4. Personal differences of opinion should be to one side at this point in time. There have been many views on here in terms of what the Trust should and shouldn't do but as mentioned above we have a good team of good people behind us who are experts in the relevant fields we need. Anybody that feels they can advise us will need to show their credentials - I would imagine any Trust member would worry if I just stated that we were picking advice from people who posted on the internet and we had no idea what their credentials were. info@swanstrust.co.uk is the way for anyone to get in touch
For me the time now is massively important for us as a Trust. For many years we have spoken internally that most will only see the point of a Trust when the club is in crisis. This may not be a crisis but it is a big crossroads that we need to get across and we have a great chance - in my view - to come out of it stronger. Whether this investment goes through or not, any new shareholders really need us as a collective to be positive about what they are doing (and you could argue that the existing shareholders do too) because without that there are films and books that show what can happen.
It is a pivotal moment for the club at the moment and the next move has to be the right one for the club, not for any one individual |  | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:36 - Nov 9 with 1236 views | Shaky |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 20:45 - Nov 8 by MoscowJack |
Shaky, why do you continue to throw insults at the same time as you're showing that you're completely out of your depth?
Is it something you learnt from your friends at "Goldman"? That still makes me laugh and is one of the first things I remember when I start to believe anything you read. You're simply a clever liar and are pretending to be something that you're not.
I've never met Lisa or Jackonicko, but they seem far more able to rip your comments to shreds than you are to able defend them. That's always the sign of someone who's talking bullsh!t. Absolute bullsh!t but without the courtesy to do it in the right style.
I don't think you're not an intelligent man as you obviously are. You know far more about these subjects than I ever will too (or you've just got more time to spend on Google than me) but even I case see that you're squirming your way through these pages very badly.
Perhaps Phil S and the Trust have not just gone with people they know they can trust as professionals in this matter (whether in-house or outsourced) but also know how to conduct themselves in public. After all, you wouldn't want some arrogant, lying, divisive and abusive know-it-all on the Trust, would you?
After all, we're not trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Global CEO of Merrill Lynch (like you proclaimed to have done once) now, are we? If we needed that, you'd be the man for the job ;) |
I am going to say this only once. I don't suffer fools gladly and I intensely dislike repeating myself.
I have explained to you and others in detail at least 2 or 3 times previously why the notion of the magic 25% Trust shareholding was nonsense in the current situation.
Even Lisa, who I can assure you reads my posts very carefully indeed, has been cautiously distancing herself from her prior wild claims that her scheme - as purloined from Noclue - was the ultimate protection, but you failed to grasp any of this and continue to spout crap.
I have no wish to see the Trust waste its sparse resources on such abject stupidity so I will not cease to comprehensively expose it especially as it appears to have the support of Uxbridge. But on the fourth time round don't expect me to wrap the intellectual demolition of this crap in cotton wool for your delicate little ears, or in order to win one of St Dav's boyscout professional advisors' badges.
The reason you fail to grasp it is because you have developed a near religious conviction that Lisa and Noclue are peerless experts in the world of finance. They say in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, but in reality while they may be accountants there is very little overlap between accountancy and corporate finance. You believe they are peerless, I know for a fact they are largely blagging it, and have proved it time and time again.
That said I am a firm believer in religious freedom, and as such fully endorse your right to accept the multitude of totally unsubstantiated claims that I have somehow been destroyed in substantive argument. Go with Lisa and Noclue, my son, but don't expect me to pander to any of your collective claptrap. |  |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:42 - Nov 9 with 1223 views | _ |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:14 - Nov 9 by Phil_S |
So many interesting questions in one thread (well, in several) but some observations and comments
1. The work undertaken by directors that they are paid for. I can't comment on them all as I don't know the circumstances involved but I know that Huw for example has been involved in the programme for far longer than he has been a Trust director. Add to that the endless things he designs and gets printed I know he is competitive and effectively has to tender every year. If he gets inside information as to what to tender then I would question as to why he has lost certain jobs that he used to do but that is for him to defend more but there certainly isn't - in my view any issues with all of this.
2. Trust advice - We have advice from a group of people who I believe are more than adequately qualified to give the advice that we need in this situation being discussed. I understand from them the legal position we find ourselves in and when we have information to share then - as mentioned before - we will head into consultation with our members.
3. Going back to point 1 above, I'm not sure the discussion point is relevant at this moment in time any more than when it has been raised on here before. What matters at the moment is that we all work together for the good of the football club and it's long term future. We have worked too hard in the past 12/13 years to see all that disappear down the drain at the first opportunity. I think at the Trust we are fortunate not to be blinded by the sums that get talked about and are certainly all down a route of wanting the long term future of the club protected. We know the stadium needs expanding, we know that it shouldn't come at the expense of the playing budget so there needs to be different ways to fund it. That is not to say that the private sale of the club will do it but there needs to be a way somehow but again it has to be the best way
4. Personal differences of opinion should be to one side at this point in time. There have been many views on here in terms of what the Trust should and shouldn't do but as mentioned above we have a good team of good people behind us who are experts in the relevant fields we need. Anybody that feels they can advise us will need to show their credentials - I would imagine any Trust member would worry if I just stated that we were picking advice from people who posted on the internet and we had no idea what their credentials were. info@swanstrust.co.uk is the way for anyone to get in touch
For me the time now is massively important for us as a Trust. For many years we have spoken internally that most will only see the point of a Trust when the club is in crisis. This may not be a crisis but it is a big crossroads that we need to get across and we have a great chance - in my view - to come out of it stronger. Whether this investment goes through or not, any new shareholders really need us as a collective to be positive about what they are doing (and you could argue that the existing shareholders do too) because without that there are films and books that show what can happen.
It is a pivotal moment for the club at the moment and the next move has to be the right one for the club, not for any one individual |
Phil, thanks for replying and I'm not surprised at your responses as we've had this discussion before.
I know also how you would respond if I said to you that in principal the Trust Director should not have such a strong financial stake each year through his company and the club. I know you will say that he was elected for that role and everyone has a chance of being in the mix to end up there.
And we as a supporter base have all been guilty of just getting carried away with all the success of the football club to not pay as close an attention to what's going on internally in the control rooms at SA1.
Regardless of whether it's true or not about how much Huw does or knows about the tender of the contracts to which he earned £150k in the last year, the stark reality I'm seeing and getting a bit Pissed off with is that every time we have moaned about one thing or another it's always been met with a party line, and excuse my French here, load of bollox.
And this has been the case for far too long, years and years and years and the Trust has done a lot of great work.....but... It's work that has been thrown in the direction of it to just make it look like it still has a purpose. Aww cute little Trust etc.
There are many really unhappy about what happened with our last Trust Director and especially the way it was portrayed in the film but I'm sorry, friendships aside here, it's happening all over again.
Everything is too cosy, we have not had a strong enough voice and instead all we get is our guys apologising and agreeing with every little greedy decision the club come out with for fleecing the loyal fans that they were once a part of.
Their own businesses doing so well out of the club plus their fat salaries and huge dividends, how dare they now come out with this bollox and attempt to get richer whilst selling us down the swanny.
We don't need any more apologising we need strong action, finally and not before it's too late. | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:53 - Nov 9 with 1206 views | JackToff |
Thanks Phil
"Whether this investment goes through or not, any new shareholders really need us as a collective to be positive about what they are doing (and you could argue that the existing shareholders do too) because without that there are films and books that show what can happen"
I take your point however we are not paupers begging at the door we are substatial shareholders so how does the positivity work if there is a clash of interests betweeen shareholders .....
The thing about bowing to the inevitable is that accepting it's inevitability is often the very thing that actually makes it inevitable. Human potential and achievement goes beyond the bounds of contract law. If we lay down we are allowing this to happen, we are actually then bouying the share price which will go into the pockets of the current shareholders (not the club) and for which those that have bought them will want their quid pro quo out of the club. There are films and books about that too. | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:55 - Nov 9 with 1199 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:42 - Nov 9 by _ |
Phil, thanks for replying and I'm not surprised at your responses as we've had this discussion before.
I know also how you would respond if I said to you that in principal the Trust Director should not have such a strong financial stake each year through his company and the club. I know you will say that he was elected for that role and everyone has a chance of being in the mix to end up there.
And we as a supporter base have all been guilty of just getting carried away with all the success of the football club to not pay as close an attention to what's going on internally in the control rooms at SA1.
Regardless of whether it's true or not about how much Huw does or knows about the tender of the contracts to which he earned £150k in the last year, the stark reality I'm seeing and getting a bit Pissed off with is that every time we have moaned about one thing or another it's always been met with a party line, and excuse my French here, load of bollox.
And this has been the case for far too long, years and years and years and the Trust has done a lot of great work.....but... It's work that has been thrown in the direction of it to just make it look like it still has a purpose. Aww cute little Trust etc.
There are many really unhappy about what happened with our last Trust Director and especially the way it was portrayed in the film but I'm sorry, friendships aside here, it's happening all over again.
Everything is too cosy, we have not had a strong enough voice and instead all we get is our guys apologising and agreeing with every little greedy decision the club come out with for fleecing the loyal fans that they were once a part of.
Their own businesses doing so well out of the club plus their fat salaries and huge dividends, how dare they now come out with this bollox and attempt to get richer whilst selling us down the swanny.
We don't need any more apologising we need strong action, finally and not before it's too late. |
I think everyone has been guilty of taking their eye off the ball. How many people have religiously renewed their trust membership over the last 5 years or since it stopped being included in the ST price?
Then again I've got no problem with interest in the trust coming and going. The important thing is that it's there and does its job when needed |  | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:00 - Nov 9 with 1186 views | Phil_S |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:53 - Nov 9 by JackToff |
Thanks Phil
"Whether this investment goes through or not, any new shareholders really need us as a collective to be positive about what they are doing (and you could argue that the existing shareholders do too) because without that there are films and books that show what can happen"
I take your point however we are not paupers begging at the door we are substatial shareholders so how does the positivity work if there is a clash of interests betweeen shareholders .....
The thing about bowing to the inevitable is that accepting it's inevitability is often the very thing that actually makes it inevitable. Human potential and achievement goes beyond the bounds of contract law. If we lay down we are allowing this to happen, we are actually then bouying the share price which will go into the pockets of the current shareholders (not the club) and for which those that have bought them will want their quid pro quo out of the club. There are films and books about that too. |
I'm not sure you have taken the point that was being made to be honest because you are referring to bowing to the inevitable and that most definitely was not the point I was making? | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:03 - Nov 9 with 1176 views | _ |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:00 - Nov 9 by Phil_S |
I'm not sure you have taken the point that was being made to be honest because you are referring to bowing to the inevitable and that most definitely was not the point I was making? |
In fairness Phil, the bit highlighted in italics does offer a hint of throwing in the towel... | |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:08 - Nov 9 with 1170 views | Phil_S |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 09:42 - Nov 9 by _ |
Phil, thanks for replying and I'm not surprised at your responses as we've had this discussion before.
I know also how you would respond if I said to you that in principal the Trust Director should not have such a strong financial stake each year through his company and the club. I know you will say that he was elected for that role and everyone has a chance of being in the mix to end up there.
And we as a supporter base have all been guilty of just getting carried away with all the success of the football club to not pay as close an attention to what's going on internally in the control rooms at SA1.
Regardless of whether it's true or not about how much Huw does or knows about the tender of the contracts to which he earned £150k in the last year, the stark reality I'm seeing and getting a bit Pissed off with is that every time we have moaned about one thing or another it's always been met with a party line, and excuse my French here, load of bollox.
And this has been the case for far too long, years and years and years and the Trust has done a lot of great work.....but... It's work that has been thrown in the direction of it to just make it look like it still has a purpose. Aww cute little Trust etc.
There are many really unhappy about what happened with our last Trust Director and especially the way it was portrayed in the film but I'm sorry, friendships aside here, it's happening all over again.
Everything is too cosy, we have not had a strong enough voice and instead all we get is our guys apologising and agreeing with every little greedy decision the club come out with for fleecing the loyal fans that they were once a part of.
Their own businesses doing so well out of the club plus their fat salaries and huge dividends, how dare they now come out with this bollox and attempt to get richer whilst selling us down the swanny.
We don't need any more apologising we need strong action, finally and not before it's too late. |
We have had this discussion before you are right which is why I don't see it as relevant to these discussions but to take a couple of your points.
If you said in principal the Trust Director should not have a strong financial stake then that is your viewpoint. However, it would need a clear mandate from our members for that to be the case and secondly I think you should also be able to be comfortable in taking that work away that it was not disadvantageous (sp) to the club to do so.
It is right though to point out that he did not earn £150k from the club last year but the club paid him £150k for services. I don't know Huw's margin but that £150k will have covered the design, overheads and printing costs of the work that he has done so how much he "made" will not be disclosed in those figures. As an aside and out of interest would you feel different if the work that he undertook would have cost say £175k elsewhere?
I will refrain from commenting on the film as I have been there before but I don't think my views on it and the portrayal will vary much from yours on here particularly from the bit that portrayed the part that the fans as a collective made. That was Mal Pope's decision and he was well aware of our feelings on the subject
I will always disagree with our voice being strong enough because I know that it has been. Where it has been weak is telling you what we are fighting against (not you as an individual but you as a member) and that has been taken on the chin. Interestingly we have been blocked in the past by local media from having the voice that we would have liked but that's one for another day. The past is the past, the current is what matters most at the moment
And here it is right for everyone to be aware that I am speaking some of it from a personal viewpoint but when talking about the deal I think the Trust stance has been made and contrary to what I have read the statement was not an open letter just confirmation of what others already knew | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:09 - Nov 9 with 1168 views | monmouth |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:00 - Nov 9 by Phil_S |
I'm not sure you have taken the point that was being made to be honest because you are referring to bowing to the inevitable and that most definitely was not the point I was making? |
Are you genuinely optimistic of a positive outcome for the club from all this Phil? Sorry, scrub that, it's an unfair question - you can answer if you want though :).
. |  |
| |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:11 - Nov 9 with 1156 views | JackToff |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:00 - Nov 9 by Phil_S |
I'm not sure you have taken the point that was being made to be honest because you are referring to bowing to the inevitable and that most definitely was not the point I was making? |
Excellent if that is the case.
I understood the point and our current position but was extrapolating along the tangent of “any new shareholders really need us to be positive of what they are doing” and the picture that came to my mind was  when we are a substantial shareholder in our own right. Caveat Emptor. | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:14 - Nov 9 with 1138 views | Phil_S |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:03 - Nov 9 by _ |
In fairness Phil, the bit highlighted in italics does offer a hint of throwing in the towel... |
On that basis it needs rewriting as that was not meant to be the intention
The point that I meant behind it was that we are actually in a very strong position of power
I'm surprised people have taken it as throwing in the towel but that certainly wasn't the case | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:16 - Nov 9 with 1134 views | MattG |
Fascinating thread, this one, and I find myself, not for the first time, split between the two main camps.
On the one hand, I don't genuinely believe that the current board would sell up without any thought and leave the Club that they fought and worked so hard do save at the whim of some foreign businessmen. Given the risks they took back in those dark days and how such a move would be completely contrary to everything they have apparently stood for over the last 10+ years, I really don't see that happening.
That said, it's impossible for anyone not to be blinded, to some extent, by the lure of a massive pile of cash. The question is, what is that extent for the current board? I've tended to support the dividends (so long as they are reflective of a positive set of accounts and remain affordable) and may serve some purpose insofar as the Shareholders can now make a tidy, ongoing return from the Club without the need to cut and run.
On the other hand, of course, it may be that the dividends have given them a taste for making some "proper money" and they might be tempted by the thought of one bumper payout - in all honesty, who wouldn't be? This is where the voices of the Trust and the wider membership come in - it would be folly to sit back and put our blind faith in the current Board. Whilst they have steered the ship more successfully than anyone would have dared hope since they took over, they have done so as stewards of OUR Club. As others have said, the Board have enjoyed immense kudos in the national and global media on the back of the "run by the fans for the fans" mantra and even sought to remind us when the Season Tickets were sent out that we are "not just another football club - this is YOUR CLUB".
Prove it. |  | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:19 - Nov 9 with 1128 views | Phil_S |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:09 - Nov 9 by monmouth |
Are you genuinely optimistic of a positive outcome for the club from all this Phil? Sorry, scrub that, it's an unfair question - you can answer if you want though :).
. |
I understand there are words from the Chairman in today's programme where he says they need to work with us to safeguard the future of the club
Or at least words to that effect anyway
That is probably the best answer I can give at the moment. If we can get there then yes we can - if there isn't a positive outcome in sight for the club then I cannot see how we can back the sale of some shares? | | | |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:29 - Nov 9 with 1113 views | JackToff |
| Could the trust be doomed? on 10:19 - Nov 9 by Phil_S |
I understand there are words from the Chairman in today's programme where he says they need to work with us to safeguard the future of the club
Or at least words to that effect anyway
That is probably the best answer I can give at the moment. If we can get there then yes we can - if there isn't a positive outcome in sight for the club then I cannot see how we can back the sale of some shares? |
I had 2 minds about that statement and its meaning
1. As it seems we will work together to do what is best for the club (not ourselves)
or
2. We will help the Trust to enlightenment and stop them blocking what is best for the club (in our minds with a conflict of interest as potential massive beneficiaries of the sale)
Of course we are all in a state of heightened awareness as is our biological gift in the time of danger and should not let that cloud our objectivity but that biological response is given for a reason. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
