| fao Phil Sumbler 16:45 - Oct 23 with 40400 views | Rancid |
Is it true that the trust is preventing us from being taken over by an American consortium for 95 million? And the rest of the board want it to go through? I'm not expecting a straight answer btw but I've heard from a very good source at the club. |  | | |  |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:44 - Oct 24 with 2008 views | Uxbridge |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:24 - Oct 24 by Phil_S |
I have a fag packet with some scribbles on it - that will do surely
SOTB - do you have a book on your shelf that says "How to state the obvious but believe you are being visionary" |
Fag packet scribbles seems to be the order of the day these days. |  |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:53 - Oct 24 with 1973 views | tomdickharry |
Trust 20% of Shares- Supporter Director- 1 vote at Board Meeting
New Investor 80% of Shares - 4 Directors - 4 votes at Board Meeting
Proposal/Seconded at Board meeting not to continue with the Stadium Expansion Plan passed by Board 4-1,the Trust have no say in the matter.
Correct or not? |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:55 - Oct 24 with 1968 views | Baptist |
OK, I've seen the film and claiming it's not a vanity project is like saying Disney don't make films for kids. I mean come on.....
It's watchable, I will give you that - but its retelling of history is as skewed as Cameron's opinion on the EU. [Post edited 24 Oct 2014 12:57]
|  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:59 - Oct 24 with 1952 views | jackonicko |
We are slightly off topic - and part of that is my fault so apologies for that.
Anyway, what is increasingly clear from these posts is that we can't be very far away from a starting gun being fired on a potential acquisition. There may or may not be a deal on the table, but it is clear that a deal is being prepared. Too many posts over the last few months with just a little bit too much detail for it to be anything else. I'm no insider, or anywhere close to being one, but even I heard back in March that some shareholders were hawking a deal in the USA. And here we are 6 months later...
We've also had a tacit, rather than explicit, confirmation from HJ at the fans forum that opportunities are being looked at.
What we are seeing on Planetswans is the starting gun being fired in the public relations war.
As has been said on this thread already, the only shareholder that doesn't have a direct financial interest in selling is the trust. The opening post is interesting as it suggests:
1) a very good source at the club
2) the trust is "preventing" us being taken over by an American consortium
3) the rest of the board want it to go through.
These "rumours" don't just find their way onto the board by chance. Rancid may not be a shareholder, or even have heard it direcetly from a shareholder, but you can be virtually that shareholder(s) wanted to get that message out there. And I very much doubt that that shareholder is the Trust.
Throw in a few posts elsewhere in the thread suggesting that the trust board are "leaky", even though it is other shareholders who have more to gain by this sort of message getting out into the public domain, and it all looks like a classic deflection strategy. The interesting question is who?
It's not subtle. But it looks to me like the start of a concerted campaign to win the battle of public opinion. Things are getting interesting. |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:02 - Oct 24 with 1938 views | Spratty |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 21:56 - Oct 23 by outtolunch |
Hypothetically yes b everytime if i had to make a choice. You are a very ??? person if you think someone should put that before their family and you should be ashamed to bring it up in a reasoned debate . Nothing however surprises me on here anymore. |
Meanwhile in the real world people are forced to miss football games, ballet shows, school concerts, parents evenings etc. on a regular basis just to meet their contractual obligations and sometimes just in order to scrape a subsistence living.
So excuse me if my heart does not bleed. |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:08 - Oct 24 with 1923 views | Uxbridge |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:53 - Oct 24 by tomdickharry |
Trust 20% of Shares- Supporter Director- 1 vote at Board Meeting
New Investor 80% of Shares - 4 Directors - 4 votes at Board Meeting
Proposal/Seconded at Board meeting not to continue with the Stadium Expansion Plan passed by Board 4-1,the Trust have no say in the matter.
Correct or not? |
All depends really. What sort of controls are in place to protect the 21%? if you have 21% then you are always ultimately going to be less influential than the 79%.
Utterly hypothetical example though. [Post edited 24 Oct 2014 13:08]
| |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:13 - Oct 24 with 1906 views | NeiltheTaylor |
If the Directors still love the club as much as they claim, even going so far as to glorify that in a film, then the only consideration they should be giving is how to permanently ensure it never ends up in the hands of vultures again.
In my simplistic view that would be to fashion our ownership into the German 51% fan owned model, which has been proven to work. I am prepared to consider alternatives, but any other motivation and we can conclude that whatever their intention originally, they have now become the vampires. [Post edited 24 Oct 2014 13:16]
| |
| Joe_bradshaw -I thought the cryochamber was the new name for Cardiff's stadium.
|
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:17 - Oct 24 with 1882 views | Dewi1jack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 23:20 - Oct 23 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
It's quite poor that we do not control things such as stand sponsorship in the stadium we made famous around the world. |
Yet again a very childish, ill-thought out attack on the club and every one who is associated with it.
Fair play, it's no different from just about every other post you make.
The rugby was , if my memory serves me right, attracting more people than we were, for most games. We were moving games to accommodate both club and country rugby.
I have made numerous offers to transport the real you (not the couple of personas you have on here), from your Salford sh1tehole, or anywhere in Britain, to a fans or Trust forum/ meeting/ AGM, so you could ask your questions/ make attacks on people in person.
That will at least give those you go out of your way to attack, the chance to put their point and defend themselves.
You don't have the bottle to do that though child. Can only make attacks from behind your keyboard. Then make excuses for why you can't go.
Sorry off thread there.
One question I have, could be a misconception on my part.
I thought the Trust had the 1st option to buy shares, under the business constitution.
In which case, surely the Trust should know if someone is trying to sell.
Don't the Trust then have the duty to approach their shareholders, to see if the money can be raised, or if the deal is right for the business? |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:18 - Oct 24 with 1875 views | Coot |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:13 - Oct 24 by NeiltheTaylor |
If the Directors still love the club as much as they claim, even going so far as to glorify that in a film, then the only consideration they should be giving is how to permanently ensure it never ends up in the hands of vultures again.
In my simplistic view that would be to fashion our ownership into the German 51% fan owned model, which has been proven to work. I am prepared to consider alternatives, but any other motivation and we can conclude that whatever their intention originally, they have now become the vampires. [Post edited 24 Oct 2014 13:16]
|
But then they don't get as much monies as they want.... |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:29 - Oct 24 with 1845 views | Spratty |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 21:45 - Oct 23 by outtolunch |
There aren't many millionaires on our board are there ? . perhaps 2.? i just picked the one who lives in swansea. I havent stated fact at all just assumed like most do.
I wonder if huw jenkins know if his board leaks things. What makes you think that you know if your board doesn't ? Absolutely pointless arguement as none of us knows. The op was pure conjecture although he will say different. . |
There seemed to be lots of leaking of information and misinformation around Feb and before as witnessed by many sub sources.
Perhaps we need to learn from that in regards of what to expect. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:30 - Oct 24 with 1847 views | Uxbridge |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:17 - Oct 24 by Dewi1jack |
Yet again a very childish, ill-thought out attack on the club and every one who is associated with it.
Fair play, it's no different from just about every other post you make.
The rugby was , if my memory serves me right, attracting more people than we were, for most games. We were moving games to accommodate both club and country rugby.
I have made numerous offers to transport the real you (not the couple of personas you have on here), from your Salford sh1tehole, or anywhere in Britain, to a fans or Trust forum/ meeting/ AGM, so you could ask your questions/ make attacks on people in person.
That will at least give those you go out of your way to attack, the chance to put their point and defend themselves.
You don't have the bottle to do that though child. Can only make attacks from behind your keyboard. Then make excuses for why you can't go.
Sorry off thread there.
One question I have, could be a misconception on my part.
I thought the Trust had the 1st option to buy shares, under the business constitution.
In which case, surely the Trust should know if someone is trying to sell.
Don't the Trust then have the duty to approach their shareholders, to see if the money can be raised, or if the deal is right for the business? |
I think the Trust raising £95m, in this hypothetical scenario, would border on the unlikely. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:34 - Oct 24 with 1833 views | Phil_S |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:53 - Oct 24 by tomdickharry |
Trust 20% of Shares- Supporter Director- 1 vote at Board Meeting
New Investor 80% of Shares - 4 Directors - 4 votes at Board Meeting
Proposal/Seconded at Board meeting not to continue with the Stadium Expansion Plan passed by Board 4-1,the Trust have no say in the matter.
Correct or not? |
If that was the structure then yes the Trust vote could lose 4-1
But I suppose it would be much better to have that said one vote than none at all
Or has your apathy extended to the fact that you just don't care at all? Dangerous game when apathy takes over |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:34 - Oct 24 with 1829 views | NeiltheTaylor |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:30 - Oct 24 by Uxbridge |
I think the Trust raising £95m, in this hypothetical scenario, would border on the unlikely. |
What about smaller amounts though, so the people who are so desperate to cash out that they want to cast aspersions on the Trust, as much as to be accusing them of being "leaky" and are generally trying to weaken the Trust via a whispering campaign, can get paid out and fark off? [Post edited 24 Oct 2014 13:38]
| |
| Joe_bradshaw -I thought the cryochamber was the new name for Cardiff's stadium.
|
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:53 - Oct 24 with 1777 views | Phil_S |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:44 - Oct 24 by Uxbridge |
Fag packet scribbles seems to be the order of the day these days. |
Tesco accounts as a good example | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:55 - Oct 24 with 1772 views | 3swan |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:17 - Oct 24 by Dewi1jack |
Yet again a very childish, ill-thought out attack on the club and every one who is associated with it.
Fair play, it's no different from just about every other post you make.
The rugby was , if my memory serves me right, attracting more people than we were, for most games. We were moving games to accommodate both club and country rugby.
I have made numerous offers to transport the real you (not the couple of personas you have on here), from your Salford sh1tehole, or anywhere in Britain, to a fans or Trust forum/ meeting/ AGM, so you could ask your questions/ make attacks on people in person.
That will at least give those you go out of your way to attack, the chance to put their point and defend themselves.
You don't have the bottle to do that though child. Can only make attacks from behind your keyboard. Then make excuses for why you can't go.
Sorry off thread there.
One question I have, could be a misconception on my part.
I thought the Trust had the 1st option to buy shares, under the business constitution.
In which case, surely the Trust should know if someone is trying to sell.
Don't the Trust then have the duty to approach their shareholders, to see if the money can be raised, or if the deal is right for the business? |
"I thought the Trust had the 1st option to buy shares, under the business constitution. "
From memory any shares would be offered to all current shareholders first not just the Trust | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:56 - Oct 24 with 1769 views | Uxbridge |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:34 - Oct 24 by NeiltheTaylor |
What about smaller amounts though, so the people who are so desperate to cash out that they want to cast aspersions on the Trust, as much as to be accusing them of being "leaky" and are generally trying to weaken the Trust via a whispering campaign, can get paid out and fark off? [Post edited 24 Oct 2014 13:38]
|
The ideal from my perspective would be for a few to take the Mel Nurse approach. I suspect it unlikely though. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:03 - Oct 24 with 1752 views | tomdickharry |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:34 - Oct 24 by Phil_S |
If that was the structure then yes the Trust vote could lose 4-1
But I suppose it would be much better to have that said one vote than none at all
Or has your apathy extended to the fact that you just don't care at all? Dangerous game when apathy takes over |
Line 1 - Thought so.
Line 2 - Correct.
Line 3/4 - Not apathetic at all wouldn't be posting on this board if I was. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:24 - Oct 24 with 1698 views | londonlisa2001 |
Couple of observations for what it's worth.
This rumour has now been doing the rounds for 6 months or so, which suggests that there is at least some mileage in it. Those who are saying - the club should be worth more than that - remember that the sale price is of little interest (other than money received by the Trust) - it goes into the pockets of shareholders not the club coffers. It doesn't mean there's money for the team, stadium or anything else - it's gone.
Secondly, my main thought reading this is how sad it all is in a lot of ways. Talk about 'money corrupts'. I guess that the whole structure has become a victim of our success. No one realised that people could become quite so wealthy out of it all, and I suppose human nature at that point kicks in and any previous show of wanting a 'fan owned club' goes through the window. The only neutral party will be the trust - as pointed out, they will not personally benefit which means their opinion should be worth far more to us as fans than the opinion of any other shareholder.
Lastly - it's sad that people that were originally involved in wanting the trust to succeed now appear from the outside to be instrumental in wanting the Trust to be portrayed as 'blockers' - that was, after all, the point of the Trust in the first place - it's a shame that has gone from positive to negative because the people who'll now benefit financially are 'locals' rather than 'outside businessmen'.
Quite a sad sense of inevitability about the whole thing really, although if the schism that appears to have developed is real, maybe it's all for the best.
Btw - Spratty's point re sacrifice that people make for their jobs is spot on. People can't have it all ways! Want the rewards - make the sacrifices. Don't want any impact on your life - then don't accept the position and the money that goes with it. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:27 - Oct 24 with 1685 views | perchrockjack |
DEWI.
Is that transport offer open to me.
I ll bring some sandwiches and pop and will have proper music with me | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:32 - Oct 24 with 1675 views | Swanaldinho |
7 pages of sourceless ramblings, I cant believe Phil is biting.
Anyhow, back to the original post, I would be delighted if the Trust blocked a takeover. It will only end in tears it always does.
STID | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:48 - Oct 24 with 1638 views | jacksinceever |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:32 - Oct 24 by Swanaldinho |
7 pages of sourceless ramblings, I cant believe Phil is biting.
Anyhow, back to the original post, I would be delighted if the Trust blocked a takeover. It will only end in tears it always does.
STID |
Any takeover will end in five years time with us in the fourth tier with marches for "........ Out!" from Rossis before a home game against Rochdale |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:52 - Oct 24 with 1628 views | tomdickharry |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:32 - Oct 24 by Swanaldinho |
7 pages of sourceless ramblings, I cant believe Phil is biting.
Anyhow, back to the original post, I would be delighted if the Trust blocked a takeover. It will only end in tears it always does.
STID |
If The Morgans:Jenkins:Davies:Katzen:wished to sell their holdings the Trust couldn't stop them,their toatl share stake being 65% | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:54 - Oct 24 with 1627 views | _ |
I've missed all this unfold since last night... What a great read from the sites best posters interspersed, unfortunately with nonsense from the likes of <Poster name removed> (NeathJack) who's sycophancy simply knows no bounds.
Also Leigh Dineen, as per usual, does himself no favours whatsoever. To lie and pretend like he has in this thread is just pathetic.
I started a thread recently about this subject in light of rumours and Westx 's thread previously, of which I was abused by the then site Mod for having my own [usual] agenda against the board.
As Lisa so perfectly puts it, and exactly how I've since rumours began and especially reading this thread, how very sad indeed we are now in this predicament, all geared on the root of all evil.
As I've said for i don't know how long, but the board of directors have done wonders for us, but have looked after themselves well all along and don't believe the nonsense about mortgaging of family homes to save our club, that's just utter rubbish. To my knowledge from conversations with people involved with the club at the time, Leigh didn't do that to save our club and if there was a gamble at all, it was simply whether buying into the club at the time (circa 2006) would make his investment pay off. It's well understood Leigh wasn't involved financially with the saving of our club but was allowed to buy shares at cost price when they would certainly have been worth more.
This has been a huge issue for many since that time and has made many of us try our best to keep a closer eye on the goings on at the club, as this club, like the film made is about us fans and without us none of it would be possible or made to work.
We, now, as supporters with a huge vested interest, should be as vigilant as possible and everyone should now be looking at making sure all dealings will be as transparent as our involvement through the Trust will allow.
To question the board is our divine right and all information, whether rumour or not should be made public to involve as many of us as possible.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:20 - Oct 24 with 1582 views | NeathJack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:54 - Oct 24 by _ |
I've missed all this unfold since last night... What a great read from the sites best posters interspersed, unfortunately with nonsense from the likes of <Poster name removed> (NeathJack) who's sycophancy simply knows no bounds.
Also Leigh Dineen, as per usual, does himself no favours whatsoever. To lie and pretend like he has in this thread is just pathetic.
I started a thread recently about this subject in light of rumours and Westx 's thread previously, of which I was abused by the then site Mod for having my own [usual] agenda against the board.
As Lisa so perfectly puts it, and exactly how I've since rumours began and especially reading this thread, how very sad indeed we are now in this predicament, all geared on the root of all evil.
As I've said for i don't know how long, but the board of directors have done wonders for us, but have looked after themselves well all along and don't believe the nonsense about mortgaging of family homes to save our club, that's just utter rubbish. To my knowledge from conversations with people involved with the club at the time, Leigh didn't do that to save our club and if there was a gamble at all, it was simply whether buying into the club at the time (circa 2006) would make his investment pay off. It's well understood Leigh wasn't involved financially with the saving of our club but was allowed to buy shares at cost price when they would certainly have been worth more.
This has been a huge issue for many since that time and has made many of us try our best to keep a closer eye on the goings on at the club, as this club, like the film made is about us fans and without us none of it would be possible or made to work.
We, now, as supporters with a huge vested interest, should be as vigilant as possible and everyone should now be looking at making sure all dealings will be as transparent as our involvement through the Trust will allow.
To question the board is our divine right and all information, whether rumour or not should be made public to involve as many of us as possible.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
What exactly have I posted in this thread that you have classed as 'nonsense'?
Also, no idea why you have decided to use my name in your post in addition to my username. I assume you'll be doing that for all posters? |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:50 - Oct 24 with 1507 views | _ |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:20 - Oct 24 by NeathJack |
What exactly have I posted in this thread that you have classed as 'nonsense'?
Also, no idea why you have decided to use my name in your post in addition to my username. I assume you'll be doing that for all posters? |
Apologies about that, I don't know why i did that in particular, I certainly didn't think about it but was also told names are ok to mention on here. You know mine. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
