| Trust Response 13:21 - Feb 13 with 13483 views | Darran |
Supporters’ Trust notes with interest, surprise and anger the press release from IPS Law, the legal representative of at least some of the former shareholders of Swansea City Football Club, and the subsequent article in the Mail Online, both of which are factually incorrect and wrongly blame the Trust for lack of progress towards a mediated settlement in relation to the sale of our football club in 2016. We note with surprise that the Mail Online did not seek any comment from the Trust before publishing its article. Legal advice is being taken.
As members will be aware from several previous Trust statements (some still publicly available on the Trust website), the Trust first proposed mediation as long ago as 18th May 2018 in its Claim Letter sent to the Club’s American owners and Huw Jenkins and other selling shareholders. This was sent in order to comply with the High Court’s Practice Direction, which sets out what parties in dispute should do prior to issuing court proceedings. It lays down a maximum timeline of three months within which the defendant parties should provide a full written response to the claim. Whilst the owners eventually provided a belated response, nine months later the Trust was still waiting for one from the Huw Jenkins and others represented by IPS Law. Finally, last Friday Chris Farnell of IPS Law informed our legal representatives that he had been instructed not to provide a detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction — and opening themselves to costs sanctions from the court if or when proceedings have to be issued against them.
IPS Law claims that their clients are willing to mediate, but that is at odds with their refusal to address the legal issues set out in the claim letter. Mediation cannot sensibly take place without that response/defence and the Trust cannot commit to wasting the funds of our members whilst the selling shareholders concerned refuse to properly engage in the pre-action process.
The Trust must also respond to the patently untrue accusation that we have twice backed out of a mediation. As our members will be aware, the first proposed mediation towards the end of last year was cancelled due to the late decision of Jason Levien not to attend. It should also be noted that it became clear in the last week that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, in spite of the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation. Although alternative attendees were suggested, a mediation is much less likely to be productive while the managing partners of the club’s owners are not prepared to fully engage.
It was again the Trust which took the initiative and proposed mediation this year, by letter from its lawyers on 16 January. This specified that Huw Jenkins and the other selling shareholders represented by IPS Law should deliver their response/defence letter by 31 January. As noted already, last Friday, though IPS Law, they refused to do so and in so doing rejected the Trust’s proposal for a mediation. That, coupled with the refusal of Messrs Levien and Kaplan to attend, is the reason that a mediation has not gone ahead. The published allegation that the Trust unilaterally withdrew at the last minute is simply untrue.
The Trust notes that while we remain in dispute with the club’s majority shareholders on various issues, they have at least shown some level of willingness to engage with the Trust. It is disappointing and notable that the selling shareholders concerned, self-proclaimed fans and former custodians of the club, have shown significantly less willingness to engage in the pre-action process.
We also note that the first move of those selling shareholders after the breakdown in discussions was to get their legal representative to rush out and speak to the press, which hardly seems in the best interests of the Football Club from which Huw Jenkins has recently resigned as chairman. It is astonishing that they accuse the Trust of trying to damage the club when we look at the current league position in comparison to 2016.
Whilst the Trust remains willing to engage in mediation, that is entirely dependent on all other parties taking the process seriously. We note the willingness of the selling shareholders concerned, through their legal representatives, to play this out in the court of public opinion rather than through the legal process. We can only conclude that this, along with their reluctance to even put forward a defence to our claim as is required by the courts’ practice direction, can only be due to the fact they know they have no defence. On the issue of costs consequences to the Trust or the impact on our legal position, our legal advisors are fully confident that the record will show it is the Trust that has made every effort to ensure that the mediation process is followed and succeeds, and we have often gone above and beyond to give this process a chance of success.
In terms of next steps, our members will know the Trust is planning a consultation with members next month where our membership would have the chance to vote on the various options available to the Trust. One of these options would be whether to proceed with legal action in relation to the 2016 sale of our football club.
The Trust has extended the offer to the legal representatives of the majority owners to continue discussions between the two parties with a view to seeking a settlement, which we would then present to our members as an option during the consultation. We hope this offer is taken up. In the meantime, the Trust’s legal team will be considering our options regarding pursuing claims against IPS Law’s clients separately.
Swansea City Supporters Trust
13th February 2019
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 13:26]
|  |
| |  |
| Trust Response on 07:15 - Feb 14 with 2174 views | builthjack |
How many are invited from the trust?
Is it just the trust officers or do they take family in with them? |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Trust Response on 07:20 - Feb 14 with 2164 views | waynekerr55 |
 |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 07:31 - Feb 14 with 2130 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Response on 07:14 - Feb 14 by Jinxy |
It's nice that the Beeb have run with a factual account of this latest attempt at misleading the public. They may be slower, but can usually be trusted to check their facts before publication. Any sane minded person (including those potentially involved with future litigation) will surely take more note of BBC accounts rather than some online gossip rag, that's if they take note of anecdotal evidence at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47223722 |
Must admit I have a rather different take. That article and the Wales Online article, completely airbrush the comments about the sellers and their legal reps. Entirely focused on the Americans. The Wales Online one is even worse. It's a curious bit of reporting. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 07:34 - Feb 14 with 2123 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 07:31 - Feb 14 by Uxbridge |
Must admit I have a rather different take. That article and the Wales Online article, completely airbrush the comments about the sellers and their legal reps. Entirely focused on the Americans. The Wales Online one is even worse. It's a curious bit of reporting. |
Two of the three beeb reporters (Wathan and Vincent) are so far up the seller's arses that when they speak you can see their heads | |
| |
| Trust Response on 08:33 - Feb 14 with 2047 views | Jinxy |
| Trust Response on 07:31 - Feb 14 by Uxbridge |
Must admit I have a rather different take. That article and the Wales Online article, completely airbrush the comments about the sellers and their legal reps. Entirely focused on the Americans. The Wales Online one is even worse. It's a curious bit of reporting. |
Fair comment, but the article title states the fact that the Trust disputes their version, and also within the body of the article it finishes by stating the Trusts's account of events. Usually, it's how you finish that's important (that's why it's never good to interrupt, as people save their main points until the end!). The BBC version is far more accurate than MOL. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 08:53 - Feb 14 with 2002 views | WarwickHunt |
They sound top drawer. 😂😂😂
Two solicitors and a trainee without an English O level between them. I hope the trainee can at least make a decent cup of coffee. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 08:58 - Feb 14 with 1989 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 08:53 - Feb 14 by WarwickHunt |
They sound top drawer. 😂😂😂
Two solicitors and a trainee without an English O level between them. I hope the trainee can at least make a decent cup of coffee. |
Instant, obviously 😠| |
| |
| Trust Response on 09:09 - Feb 14 with 1969 views | waynekerr55 |
Not an official page apparently; they are planning on having it taken down and 'may' pursue legal action against anyone sharing this.
PR gaffes aplenty! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Response on 09:16 - Feb 14 with 1950 views | Loyal |
| Trust Response on 09:09 - Feb 14 by waynekerr55 |
Not an official page apparently; they are planning on having it taken down and 'may' pursue legal action against anyone sharing this.
PR gaffes aplenty! |
Not sure how any legal action can be taken for sharing it. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Trust Response on 09:24 - Feb 14 with 1937 views | Barran |
| Trust Response on 09:09 - Feb 14 by waynekerr55 |
Not an official page apparently; they are planning on having it taken down and 'may' pursue legal action against anyone sharing this.
PR gaffes aplenty! |
Like the Trust are considering legal action silly cnt. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 09:41 - Feb 14 with 1907 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 09:24 - Feb 14 by Barran |
Like the Trust are considering legal action silly cnt. |
Hi DGT!
The only silly c*nt here is you  | |
| |
| Trust Response on 09:43 - Feb 14 with 1895 views | Barran |
| Trust Response on 09:41 - Feb 14 by waynekerr55 |
Hi DGT!
The only silly c*nt here is you |
So old. | | | |
| Trust Response on 09:44 - Feb 14 with 1892 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 09:43 - Feb 14 by Barran |
So old. |
Is that a song? | |
| |
| Trust Response on 22:53 - Mar 31 with 1608 views | NeathJack |
So then, about this vote we're having in March...
It's probably fair to say it's being cut a bit fine what with only an hour of March remaining.
I think the improved communication with members need some further tweaking. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 05:29 - Apr 1 with 1476 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Response on 22:53 - Mar 31 by NeathJack |
So then, about this vote we're having in March...
It's probably fair to say it's being cut a bit fine what with only an hour of March remaining.
I think the improved communication with members need some further tweaking. |
One legal issue left to be resolved which has delayed that
My understanding was this (the delay) had been put in the public domain already, apologies if it hasn't |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
