£15 for our home friendly 13:09 - Jul 23 with 23618 views | _ | Why can't the club just once, just ONCE, turn round to the supporter and offer them a real gesture of good will and thank us for our loyal support. £15 for a kick about in the sun... And I don't care if every other club in England is doing it. It would be nice if our club had a different mentality when it came to its supporters. Have they forgotten how many times they have messed up in the past - The Euro games for example. They must be due another dividend soon i'd imagine. Pathetic, Swansea City, pathetic. | |
| | |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:09 - Jul 24 with 890 views | _ |
£15 for our home friendly on 15:39 - Jul 24 by londonlisa2001 | Dwight - I will answer you politely in case you are not deliberately being irritating. If you look at the thread, along with other similar threads, at no point have I ever started this nonsense - I simply respond to repeated insults some of which are frankly pretty offensive. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in conversing with people on here other than about the swans which I enjoy doing. It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to take part in conversations about crap - if I answer a question that is asked and I get, in internet terms, roundly abused for it for people that had nothing to do with the original conversation it is often difficult to resist the temptation to rise to it. I have no interest in dealing with trolls - it is utterly beyond my comprehension why people think it's acceptable behaviour. If someone referred to you constantly as a liar and psychotic etc I'm sure you wouldn't find it acceptable. In my mind, it indicates a real and genuine problem and if it was up to me, people doing it would just be banned. Having said that - I don't find it upsetting in the way it is intended to be, I find it pathetic. |
This isn't true either... not in this thread, at least. | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:13 - Jul 24 with 880 views | skippyjack |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:06 - Jul 24 by _ | Why are you asking awkward questions? Why aren't you in paid employment? Why don't you get a job and pay taxes? Why don't you put the same effort into work as you do on here? You're clearly able to do that.... |
Is this a serious question? And you know.. it's pretty offensive in fairness. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:14 - Jul 24 with 877 views | Darran |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:06 - Jul 24 by _ | Why are you asking awkward questions? Why aren't you in paid employment? Why don't you get a job and pay taxes? Why don't you put the same effort into work as you do on here? You're clearly able to do that.... |
I do pay taxes and I'm asking awkward questions if that's what they are to show he's not a Swans fan. | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:14 - Jul 24 with 877 views | londonlisa2001 |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:03 - Jul 24 by _ | Why is it libel, Lisa? Just to clarify? |
'that he was operating under a clear conflict of interest with his obligations to the Trust is simply not in doubt' The use of the term (on more than one occasion) 'financial skullduggery' is also verging on the implication that there was wrong doing as I'm sure you're well aware. The categorical statement copied though is fairly clear. Btw - re 'new user' - as you can see from my user name, 2001 (albeit you may think the date there for another reason) was when I began posting to the message boards (obviously not this one since it was not in existence but previous incarnations and also on Gary's old site and swanmail). So 13 years ago - not that recent really. | | | |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:25 - Jul 24 with 851 views | jackonicko |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:07 - Jul 24 by _ | No, he didn't buy shares or his family as part of the original consortium. Richard would be really nice to have around right now, mate, (RIP) and you're talking sh1t! |
Chris is correct here. And the sadly missed Rich L was definitely not in favour of what happened. I well remember that particular conversation. | | | |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:38 - Jul 24 with 824 views | Lord_Bony | Indeed | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:41 - Jul 24 with 814 views | outtolunch |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:07 - Jul 24 by _ | No, he didn't buy shares or his family as part of the original consortium. Richard would be really nice to have around right now, mate, (RIP) and you're talking sh1t! |
This was your post you idiot. It clearly says that Olliedom was a shareholder in the 'new ' swansea city FC i.e. the original consortium "The document was produced and was signed by the Trust representatives at that meeting, Leigh Dineen and Nigel Hamer. Also present were Martin Burgess, who had become more involved during the Court case and had brought Brian Katzen to the table, Steve Penny , Mel Nurse, David Morgan and two others who had expressed an interest in becoming involved but decided it wasn’t for them financially. Other investors who had not been a party to all of the meetings but had agreed to become financially involved were OTH Limited (Martin Morgan), Redi Plastics Limited (Huw Jenkins), Five Thirty Ltd (Brian Katzen), and Swansea Jacks Ltd (John van Zweden and David Morgan) — these, together with Mel Nurse, Robert Davies and Olliedom Ltd (Dineen family) comprise the shareholders in the “new” Swansea City FC. " | | | |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:48 - Jul 24 with 806 views | _ |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:14 - Jul 24 by londonlisa2001 | 'that he was operating under a clear conflict of interest with his obligations to the Trust is simply not in doubt' The use of the term (on more than one occasion) 'financial skullduggery' is also verging on the implication that there was wrong doing as I'm sure you're well aware. The categorical statement copied though is fairly clear. Btw - re 'new user' - as you can see from my user name, 2001 (albeit you may think the date there for another reason) was when I began posting to the message boards (obviously not this one since it was not in existence but previous incarnations and also on Gary's old site and swanmail). So 13 years ago - not that recent really. |
A "conflict of interest" in terms of being the voice of the fan on the street, the role he was elected for.... to then becoming a Club Director and being able to purchase a considerable shareholding at "x" price? The Supporters Trust Director enjoys the same matchday privileges at least, as the other Directors. That's too close a relationship I feel for the real supporters voices to ever get heard. It's what happens at all levels in all walks of life - we need to be aware of it, don't you agree? | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
£15 for our home friendly on 16:53 - Jul 24 with 788 views | _ |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:41 - Jul 24 by outtolunch | This was your post you idiot. It clearly says that Olliedom was a shareholder in the 'new ' swansea city FC i.e. the original consortium "The document was produced and was signed by the Trust representatives at that meeting, Leigh Dineen and Nigel Hamer. Also present were Martin Burgess, who had become more involved during the Court case and had brought Brian Katzen to the table, Steve Penny , Mel Nurse, David Morgan and two others who had expressed an interest in becoming involved but decided it wasn’t for them financially. Other investors who had not been a party to all of the meetings but had agreed to become financially involved were OTH Limited (Martin Morgan), Redi Plastics Limited (Huw Jenkins), Five Thirty Ltd (Brian Katzen), and Swansea Jacks Ltd (John van Zweden and David Morgan) — these, together with Mel Nurse, Robert Davies and Olliedom Ltd (Dineen family) comprise the shareholders in the “new” Swansea City FC. " |
Read it again THICKO and take your time next time... (pay close attention to the highlighted "NEW" bit....) ps you're embarrassing yourself... (sshh) Haha and wasn't it you who was shouting out that we should read the book or something... Dear me.... | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:07 - Jul 24 with 751 views | londonlisa2001 |
£15 for our home friendly on 16:48 - Jul 24 by _ | A "conflict of interest" in terms of being the voice of the fan on the street, the role he was elected for.... to then becoming a Club Director and being able to purchase a considerable shareholding at "x" price? The Supporters Trust Director enjoys the same matchday privileges at least, as the other Directors. That's too close a relationship I feel for the real supporters voices to ever get heard. It's what happens at all levels in all walks of life - we need to be aware of it, don't you agree? |
there is a difference between agreeing, disagreeing, raising reasonable questions, making sure that people are answerable etc etc and stating categorically that there has been an abuse of position. I am sorry, but in my view, questioning and making sure people are accountable is acceptable and stating that someone has definitely operated in conflict to the interests of the position they held on the supporters' trust is quite unacceptable. It is particularly unacceptable when it comes from someone that is basing this statement on nothing other than a loathing of the way in which the Trust and club operates. How do I know that the statement is being based on nothing substantive? Well because said person did not even know about the history until it was drawn to his attention on this thread, and therefore, cannot possibly have any supportable evidence that what he says is true. | | | |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:09 - Jul 24 with 743 views | Darran |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:07 - Jul 24 by londonlisa2001 | there is a difference between agreeing, disagreeing, raising reasonable questions, making sure that people are answerable etc etc and stating categorically that there has been an abuse of position. I am sorry, but in my view, questioning and making sure people are accountable is acceptable and stating that someone has definitely operated in conflict to the interests of the position they held on the supporters' trust is quite unacceptable. It is particularly unacceptable when it comes from someone that is basing this statement on nothing other than a loathing of the way in which the Trust and club operates. How do I know that the statement is being based on nothing substantive? Well because said person did not even know about the history until it was drawn to his attention on this thread, and therefore, cannot possibly have any supportable evidence that what he says is true. |
Spot on. | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:15 - Jul 24 with 734 views | Shaky |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:07 - Jul 24 by londonlisa2001 | there is a difference between agreeing, disagreeing, raising reasonable questions, making sure that people are answerable etc etc and stating categorically that there has been an abuse of position. I am sorry, but in my view, questioning and making sure people are accountable is acceptable and stating that someone has definitely operated in conflict to the interests of the position they held on the supporters' trust is quite unacceptable. It is particularly unacceptable when it comes from someone that is basing this statement on nothing other than a loathing of the way in which the Trust and club operates. How do I know that the statement is being based on nothing substantive? Well because said person did not even know about the history until it was drawn to his attention on this thread, and therefore, cannot possibly have any supportable evidence that what he says is true. |
Ignorance, lies and stupidity in equal measures. Your favourite source Wikipedia defines Conflict of Interest "A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest As for the other term you have latched onto my words were "creating less scope for financial skullduggery". Scope and potential is in no way an accusation of anything. But the clear and obvious conflict of interest nevertheless remains, for anybody to see, save you own ignorant lying self. | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:21 - Jul 24 with 713 views | Uxbridge | There was a clear conflict of interest which is why he was stood down from the Trust after purchasing those shares. That's not libellous in the slightest. Independence is key IMO and I'd say it exists today. True there are a couple of trust board members with a professional involvement there but as far as I'm aware that predates their Trust involvement and from what I've seen it doesn't compromise their objectivity. Ideal world there'd be no crossover IMO but frankly if no one else is standing then what can be done? | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:22 - Jul 24 with 709 views | raynor94 |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:15 - Jul 24 by Shaky | Ignorance, lies and stupidity in equal measures. Your favourite source Wikipedia defines Conflict of Interest "A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest As for the other term you have latched onto my words were "creating less scope for financial skullduggery". Scope and potential is in no way an accusation of anything. But the clear and obvious conflict of interest nevertheless remains, for anybody to see, save you own ignorant lying self. |
I do admire the way you keep getting up off the canvas, but you are one big pain in the arse | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:27 - Jul 24 with 696 views | Darran |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:22 - Jul 24 by raynor94 | I do admire the way you keep getting up off the canvas, but you are one big pain in the arse |
And he still hasn't answered my questions. | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:27 - Jul 24 with 689 views | _ |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:07 - Jul 24 by londonlisa2001 | there is a difference between agreeing, disagreeing, raising reasonable questions, making sure that people are answerable etc etc and stating categorically that there has been an abuse of position. I am sorry, but in my view, questioning and making sure people are accountable is acceptable and stating that someone has definitely operated in conflict to the interests of the position they held on the supporters' trust is quite unacceptable. It is particularly unacceptable when it comes from someone that is basing this statement on nothing other than a loathing of the way in which the Trust and club operates. How do I know that the statement is being based on nothing substantive? Well because said person did not even know about the history until it was drawn to his attention on this thread, and therefore, cannot possibly have any supportable evidence that what he says is true. |
How come you don't know what happened, Lisa? | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:30 - Jul 24 with 678 views | _ |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:21 - Jul 24 by Uxbridge | There was a clear conflict of interest which is why he was stood down from the Trust after purchasing those shares. That's not libellous in the slightest. Independence is key IMO and I'd say it exists today. True there are a couple of trust board members with a professional involvement there but as far as I'm aware that predates their Trust involvement and from what I've seen it doesn't compromise their objectivity. Ideal world there'd be no crossover IMO but frankly if no one else is standing then what can be done? |
I totally agree And. But if the Trust's positions are now merely a stepping stone for personal kudos or financial gain, what's the point in it? Ten pin bowling...!? | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:30 - Jul 24 with 674 views | Shaky |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:27 - Jul 24 by Darran | And he still hasn't answered my questions. |
I have answered the same questions on numerous occasions and it is now getting more than a little tedious. If there is any doubt as to my answers I suggest you employ the board's advanced search features -- hope that helps | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:33 - Jul 24 with 664 views | longlostjack | Come on Shaky answer those questions will you !! | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:33 - Jul 24 with 663 views | _ |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:27 - Jul 24 by Darran | And he still hasn't answered my questions. |
What exactly is the point in you? Apart from spending your whole existence on here with your embarrassing comments what else do you do? You have to get involved in every thread, even ones you have no clue about and usually spout off the same bollox you've always done. Fack off mun... | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:34 - Jul 24 with 661 views | londonlisa2001 |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:15 - Jul 24 by Shaky | Ignorance, lies and stupidity in equal measures. Your favourite source Wikipedia defines Conflict of Interest "A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest As for the other term you have latched onto my words were "creating less scope for financial skullduggery". Scope and potential is in no way an accusation of anything. But the clear and obvious conflict of interest nevertheless remains, for anybody to see, save you own ignorant lying self. |
I, and everyone else here I imagine, know what a conflict of interest is but you didn't say that there was a potential conflict of interest albeit that one couldn't know whether that conflict actually existed without knowing the facts. You said, and I quote, 'that he was operating under a clear conflict of interest with his obligations to the Trust is simply not in doubt'. You did not say that circumstances as you were aware of them would suggest that he potentially had a conflict of interest (all that you possibly could state from the facts that you have to hand), or even that he actually had a conflict (which you don't know because you don't know if any of the so called multiple interests could have possibly corrupted the motivation (to quote from your favourite wiki below) . You said instead that there was no doubt he operated under that conflict. How do you know that? How do you know he didn't recuse himself from any discussion on the topic. How do you know that his actions were in any way a conflict with his obligations to the Trust. How do you know for that matter what exactly his obligations to the Trust were? I'm ignoring the 'ignorant lying bit' Shaky - you obviously have no ability to converse as a grown up. | | | |
(No subject) (n/t) on 17:34 - Jul 24 with 661 views | Uxbridge |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:30 - Jul 24 by _ | I totally agree And. But if the Trust's positions are now merely a stepping stone for personal kudos or financial gain, what's the point in it? Ten pin bowling...!? |
| |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:35 - Jul 24 with 657 views | longlostjack | Just had a thought - maybe he's googling match reports and it's taking some time. | |
| |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:36 - Jul 24 with 649 views | londonlisa2001 |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:27 - Jul 24 by _ | How come you don't know what happened, Lisa? |
what do you mean? | | | |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:39 - Jul 24 with 641 views | Darran |
£15 for our home friendly on 17:30 - Jul 24 by Shaky | I have answered the same questions on numerous occasions and it is now getting more than a little tedious. If there is any doubt as to my answers I suggest you employ the board's advanced search features -- hope that helps |
Go on answer then today not by PM like you did the last time. How many times you been to the Vetch? How many times you been to the Liberty? How many times have you seen us play live? (Not on internet) How much money has your love of Swansea City cost you? | |
| |
| |