| Trust Statement 20:42 - Apr 11 with 37412 views | monmouth |
Good!!! |  |
| |  |
| Trust Statement on 22:57 - Apr 11 with 2241 views | waynekerr55 |
On a serious note surely Dineen and Jenkins must have expected this, after all they swept to power in the Petty days under a wave of fan pressure.They can't be that stupid...Surely? |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 23:01 - Apr 11 with 2230 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| Trust Statement on 22:56 - Apr 11 by Cooperman |
That's the bit I don't get; what was the building bridges about if SCST have known this all along.
This will get worse before it gets better. If we do stay up it won't look good being a PL team in off the field turmoil. The press will have a field day, I can see BBC Wales now! |
Surely these statements serve little good for The Trust anyway. Keep all this stuff for the days in court. Hopefully the next 'statement' provides details of the members vote to take legal action, and not another petty response to something the Americans have said in the press to obviously try and provoke a reaction like this. |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 23:01 - Apr 11 with 2236 views | monmouth |
| Trust Statement on 22:56 - Apr 11 by Cooperman |
That's the bit I don't get; what was the building bridges about if SCST have known this all along.
This will get worse before it gets better. If we do stay up it won't look good being a PL team in off the field turmoil. The press will have a field day, I can see BBC Wales now! |
I would grasp stay up and off the field turmoil with both hands in a heartbeat A! | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 23:03 - Apr 11 with 2231 views | Pokerface |
"The Supporters Trust did receive an offer to purchase up to half the Trust shares in August 2016 "- how much for ? What is the value of that now ? Trust have built bridges with new owners and have a say in Clements appointment !!!
Whooopppeeeeee fcuking doooooo.
This is a shambles from start to finish. The lack of professionalism in all of this is shocking. Cost the fans millions which could have been used for SCFC long term future but too many feathering own nests.
Yet NOTHING is done about it. Strange. |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 23:05 - Apr 11 with 2226 views | Cooperman |
| Trust Statement on 22:57 - Apr 11 by waynekerr55 |
On a serious note surely Dineen and Jenkins must have expected this, after all they swept to power in the Petty days under a wave of fan pressure.They can't be that stupid...Surely? |
When you're on a winning and upward streak at the gambling table it's very hard to see the end point. This lot probably sufffered the same experience in their upward curve towards Premier League riches. |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 23:11 - Apr 11 with 2198 views | monmouth |
| Trust Statement on 23:03 - Apr 11 by Pokerface |
"The Supporters Trust did receive an offer to purchase up to half the Trust shares in August 2016 "- how much for ? What is the value of that now ? Trust have built bridges with new owners and have a say in Clements appointment !!!
Whooopppeeeeee fcuking doooooo.
This is a shambles from start to finish. The lack of professionalism in all of this is shocking. Cost the fans millions which could have been used for SCFC long term future but too many feathering own nests.
Yet NOTHING is done about it. Strange. |
Did you missthis bit?
"however this offer was quickly withdrawn when further details were requested by us." | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 23:43 - Apr 11 with 2135 views | airedale |
A man walks into a pub an says 'pint of bitter please', the barman says 'sorry sir but we need more information', so the bloke says 'forget it'. |  | | |
| Trust Statement on 00:17 - Apr 12 with 2093 views | giantstoneater |
| Trust Statement on 21:51 - Apr 11 by TheResurrection |
Always good to issue a statement quickly to pour cold water on any flames being fanned. Good work.
This looks like it's going to rumble on and be played out in the public eye. The Trust have a tendency to wait for an action before reacting. It would be nice for them to start driving the bus from now and take the game to the Americans.
This has gone on too long. |
I would hope that it will be a tank they will be driving! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Statement on 06:15 - Apr 12 with 2000 views | tylagarwjack |
| Trust Statement on 00:17 - Apr 12 by giantstoneater |
I would hope that it will be a tank they will be driving! |
So the Americans stated at the fans forum that they were not shown a copy of the shareholders agreement during the process of buying the shares, despite asking for it, right?
If that is the case, and presumably there were members of the trust board present at the forum, who would have known that it was not actually the case, why was that not made clear there and then, on the night, rather than via a trust statement several days later?
Also, I can't believe the Americans would have lied like that unless they expected the trust board to keep quiet and not publically call them out? Even then, even if they had kept quiet, the trust board would have known that they'd lied (and if they've lied about this what else other lies could they have told (or could they tell in the future)), even if the fan base as a whole didn't know, which would surely seriously undermine any bridges and working relationships they were supposedly seeking to build with the trust board. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 07:05 - Apr 12 with 1969 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust Statement on 06:15 - Apr 12 by tylagarwjack |
So the Americans stated at the fans forum that they were not shown a copy of the shareholders agreement during the process of buying the shares, despite asking for it, right?
If that is the case, and presumably there were members of the trust board present at the forum, who would have known that it was not actually the case, why was that not made clear there and then, on the night, rather than via a trust statement several days later?
Also, I can't believe the Americans would have lied like that unless they expected the trust board to keep quiet and not publically call them out? Even then, even if they had kept quiet, the trust board would have known that they'd lied (and if they've lied about this what else other lies could they have told (or could they tell in the future)), even if the fan base as a whole didn't know, which would surely seriously undermine any bridges and working relationships they were supposedly seeking to build with the trust board. |
Yes total incompetence by the Yank's lawyers. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 07:32 - Apr 12 with 1936 views | TheResurrection |
| Trust Statement on 07:05 - Apr 12 by Nookiejack |
Yes total incompetence by the Yank's lawyers. |
I guess we'll find out, hopefully anyway, in the course of time.
All we want as fans is some answers to very basic questions but I'm sure there's more to come out yet... |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 07:49 - Apr 12 with 1898 views | Neath_Jack |
This is playing out like a f*cking facebook spat.
He said this, they said that, he said the other.......
Get in court or f*ck off is it. |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 07:56 - Apr 12 with 1891 views | NOTRAC |
Does anyone really believe that it's a good idea to transfer/sell the lease of the Liberty to these people now? | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 08:21 - Apr 12 with 1840 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust Statement on 07:49 - Apr 12 by Neath_Jack |
This is playing out like a f*cking facebook spat.
He said this, they said that, he said the other.......
Get in court or f*ck off is it. |
If Trust lawyers sent the shareholders agreement to the Yanks's lawyers prior to the sale - that is not he said this, they said that.
That is lawyer to lawyer and totally evidential. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 08:25 - Apr 12 with 1829 views | Dr_Winston |
| Trust Statement on 21:27 - Apr 11 by fbreath |
Oops
As I said in previous threads their attitude was "it's only the trust" a group of nomarks in their eyes and easily walked over.
Looks like they've underestimated the trust. |
Plenty of Swans fans have expressed the same opinion too. |  |
| 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 Statement on 08:33 - Apr 12 with 1809 views | Landore_Jack |
| Trust Statement on 22:45 - Apr 11 by Landore_Jack |
What is the worst case scenario for the selling shareholders if they are found guilty? |
Lisa / Shaky? |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 08:44 - Apr 12 with 1794 views | Shaky |
"It is important for our members to be aware that at no time has the Supporters Trust ever stated that we would not sell all, or part, of our shareholding under any circumstances. "
Hmmm. What we have going back before Levin & Kaplin emerged on the scene is numerous statements and a declared Trust strategy to increase it's stake in the club. By inference it was fairly obvious that there was no intention to sell, and nobody following club affairs could have been in any doubt about that.
Furthermore, on Jackarmy there is a first hand, real time account of a Trust forum from Yank v1.0 where Cozy is quoted verbatim as saying the Trust would never sell.
Is that an official Trust statement? Coming from the official Trust representative on the club board of directors, without a doubt!
There is nothing whatsoever in the law of the land that says you can't change your mind, but to claim the Trust never said they wouldn't sell is in my view not serious.
"The Trust can confirm that a copy of the original Shareholders Agreement was provided to the buyers’ legal team prior to completion of the sale. A copy was sent as soon as we were advised that the sellers had warranted that no such agreement existed."
Hang on a minute, how could the Trust have got wind of the warranties in the Share Purchase Agreement before it was signed? The answer is that is very unlikely indeed, which probably means the statement is obfuscating the facts by conflating when the deal was irrevocably signed and executed (probably on 21/7/16), and when it formally closed (probably whenever the formality of Levin and Kaplan gaining Premier League approval was received).
That's misleading, boys.
"it is important that we address the issues that have been raised at the Fans Forum"
Agreed, but it would have been even better to have responded at the Fans Forum itself, so Levin and Kaplan had a right of reply, and we might have a chance to establish some actual facts in this process! |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 08:45 - Apr 12 with 1791 views | Shaky |
| Trust Statement on 08:33 - Apr 12 by Landore_Jack |
Lisa / Shaky? |
A fine. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 08:52 - Apr 12 with 1779 views | Shaky |
| Trust Statement on 08:45 - Apr 12 by Shaky |
A fine. |
But not for any of that stuff.
If there was a binding shareholders agreement, the buyers could potentially also sue to recover a monetary penalty from the sellers basis the Reps & warranties they provided. That could be substantial, but is highly unlikely to amount to more than say 50% of the purchase price. [Post edited 12 Apr 2017 8:53]
| |
| |
| Trust Statement on 08:55 - Apr 12 with 1767 views | Darran |
| Trust Statement on 06:15 - Apr 12 by tylagarwjack |
So the Americans stated at the fans forum that they were not shown a copy of the shareholders agreement during the process of buying the shares, despite asking for it, right?
If that is the case, and presumably there were members of the trust board present at the forum, who would have known that it was not actually the case, why was that not made clear there and then, on the night, rather than via a trust statement several days later?
Also, I can't believe the Americans would have lied like that unless they expected the trust board to keep quiet and not publically call them out? Even then, even if they had kept quiet, the trust board would have known that they'd lied (and if they've lied about this what else other lies could they have told (or could they tell in the future)), even if the fan base as a whole didn't know, which would surely seriously undermine any bridges and working relationships they were supposedly seeking to build with the trust board. |
Why would the members of the Trust board present at the forum have to do that? |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 09:17 - Apr 12 with 1732 views | Shaky |
One other point:
". . . the Supporters Trust did receive an offer to purchase up to half the Trust shares in August 2016, however this offer was quickly withdrawn when further details were requested by us."
Did this request for 'details' constitute or could it have been construed as a counter-offer?
Quite possibly, in which case the initial offer becomes void in law of contract. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 09:29 - Apr 12 with 1708 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Statement on 08:44 - Apr 12 by Shaky |
"It is important for our members to be aware that at no time has the Supporters Trust ever stated that we would not sell all, or part, of our shareholding under any circumstances. "
Hmmm. What we have going back before Levin & Kaplin emerged on the scene is numerous statements and a declared Trust strategy to increase it's stake in the club. By inference it was fairly obvious that there was no intention to sell, and nobody following club affairs could have been in any doubt about that.
Furthermore, on Jackarmy there is a first hand, real time account of a Trust forum from Yank v1.0 where Cozy is quoted verbatim as saying the Trust would never sell.
Is that an official Trust statement? Coming from the official Trust representative on the club board of directors, without a doubt!
There is nothing whatsoever in the law of the land that says you can't change your mind, but to claim the Trust never said they wouldn't sell is in my view not serious.
"The Trust can confirm that a copy of the original Shareholders Agreement was provided to the buyers’ legal team prior to completion of the sale. A copy was sent as soon as we were advised that the sellers had warranted that no such agreement existed."
Hang on a minute, how could the Trust have got wind of the warranties in the Share Purchase Agreement before it was signed? The answer is that is very unlikely indeed, which probably means the statement is obfuscating the facts by conflating when the deal was irrevocably signed and executed (probably on 21/7/16), and when it formally closed (probably whenever the formality of Levin and Kaplan gaining Premier League approval was received).
That's misleading, boys.
"it is important that we address the issues that have been raised at the Fans Forum"
Agreed, but it would have been even better to have responded at the Fans Forum itself, so Levin and Kaplan had a right of reply, and we might have a chance to establish some actual facts in this process! |
I couldnt comment on the Yank v1.0 forum as I was travelling back from purgatory (aka Eurodisney) that day, however if HC said that verbatim (which I doubt) then it would be inaccurate, not Trust policy and an overreach. That policy solely related to that deal, and Trust policy has always been it's a decision for the members.
As for knowing about the existence of a warranted item before the share purchase was concluded, is it really that much of a stretch given there was dialogue between the respective legal teams at the time? [Post edited 12 Apr 2017 9:36]
|  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 09:31 - Apr 12 with 1704 views | tylagarwjack |
Why wouldn't the members of the trust board that were present challenge a statement that was clearly quite the exact opposite of what actually happened? | | | |
| Trust Statement on 09:34 - Apr 12 with 1688 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Statement on 09:31 - Apr 12 by tylagarwjack |
Why wouldn't the members of the trust board that were present challenge a statement that was clearly quite the exact opposite of what actually happened? |
A fair question. Some disagreement on whether should have or not, but I tend to agree. However, it rather pales into insignificance with ensuring the facts are brought to light, doesn't it? | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 09:40 - Apr 12 with 1667 views | Shaky |
| Trust Statement on 09:29 - Apr 12 by Uxbridge |
I couldnt comment on the Yank v1.0 forum as I was travelling back from purgatory (aka Eurodisney) that day, however if HC said that verbatim (which I doubt) then it would be inaccurate, not Trust policy and an overreach. That policy solely related to that deal, and Trust policy has always been it's a decision for the members.
As for knowing about the existence of a warranted item before the share purchase was concluded, is it really that much of a stretch given there was dialogue between the respective legal teams at the time? [Post edited 12 Apr 2017 9:36]
|
Well, as you know i am trying to help you, but at the end of the day I call it as I see it.
Speaking of which, I don't see any good reason for delaying legal action, if the QC has confirmed we have a starter. The simple truth is there is never a good time, which practically speaking means there is never going to be a better time than now! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
