By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
£15 for our home friendly on 12:30 - Jul 24 by jackonicko
I'm with Uxbridge. I've made my views on divis and the relationship between the club and the fans many times now, so don't feel the need to repeat it in detail.
I never understand why, when this discussion comes up, the outcome becomes so binary - either the club can do no wrong or the club can do no right. Some posters on here always seem to fall into one of those camps when they post (although their views may well be more nuanced than they portray). But the answer (for me) is much more in the middle.
Has the board and the trust done an amazing job since they came in? Absolutely. Is Huw J an excellent Chairman? I can see the faults, but in the main you cannot fault his record. I think if you put him up against the other 91 in the football league he could well come out top.
But the club can no longer 'hide' behind the "run by the fans for the fans" mantra of many years. Every fan will have their tipping point, and they may not have reached it yet (mine was the early renewal of season tickets in our first year in the PL). I now am made to feel by the club like a customer, rather than a part of it.
I generally don't have an issue with the dividends, but as a consequence of that decision, the directors should no longer expect to get the slack they would have got in the past. If they want to be a commercial business, they should expect the scrutiny from the 'customers' as a result.
The Trust for me has a credibility issue, largely for the reasons ECB expressed earlier in the thread. (I'm still waiting for that promised trust statement on the early season ticket renewal!)
It may well lobby hard for us, but if what they do isn't known, isn't publicised, you can't blame the supporters for thinking it didn't happen.
The Trust and its set up lost a lot of credibility when the then Trust Director Leigh Dineen was shoehorned on to main board of Directors through financial investment.
Nobody wants to lose the Trust and the Boards close working links - but how close have they now become?
Is it Huw Cooze who is the Trust Director? From the little I know of him and like Dineen, isn't he just another club apologiser who's close to the Board - very close?
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
The Trust and its set up lost a lot of credibility when the then Trust Director Leigh Dineen was shoehorned on to main board of Directors through financial investment.
Nobody wants to lose the Trust and the Boards close working links - but how close have they now become?
Is it Huw Cooze who is the Trust Director? From the little I know of him and like Dineen, isn't he just another club apologiser who's close to the Board - very close?
I don't see HC as a club apologiser at all, to be fair.
But you and I both agree on the first issue, and I've made my thoughts plain on that too in the past.
0
£15 for our home friendly on 13:06 - Jul 24 with 843 views
£15 for our home friendly on 11:15 - Jul 24 by perchrockjack
lisa. serious post and read this well for future reference. this club ,,second to family,is everything to me. It represents my upbringing, my town/city and all my deceased family who were all Swans fans. I really have seen the lows and its great to have them well buried in the past. As they are so dear to me, I sure a sfeck aint having any arsewipe player screwing my club and not giving 100%, no player good enough to do his job for my club, no manager not arsed to move my/our club forward. Ergo it means if I THINK WE VE SCREWED UP i say so-ON INTERNET.I have never been one to boo at a game. If we re gash Im just too sick to open my mouth.
What really grips myshuite are posters o here never ever willing to admit anything is wrong and that all players are beyond reproach.THEY ARE NOT. They are playing for my club after all. We ve had some staggering progressive years but we ve also had deadwood that have been binned by managers, which is correct. YOU DONT KEEP DROSS.
Internet dewy eyed ,rosy tinted flok are often simply lying on this site. THEY PROFESS TO BE "Positive". Theyre re simply lying to impress their internet chums ;why escapes my small brain cells. Honest fans ,like me, shoot from the hip,say it as it is,get it wrong/right;doesnt really matter to me so long as the Club is doing ok.
The Trust and its set up lost a lot of credibility when the then Trust Director Leigh Dineen was shoehorned on to main board of Directors through financial investment.
Nobody wants to lose the Trust and the Boards close working links - but how close have they now become?
Is it Huw Cooze who is the Trust Director? From the little I know of him and like Dineen, isn't he just another club apologiser who's close to the Board - very close?
I used to wonder what Huw Cooze did. I wondered whether he did it to help build his company because of the printing etc of matchday programmes etc.
Over the past few years, I've met and got to know many past and present Trust board members and I've completely changed my mind.
He cares about the fans! A lot. He works harder for the Trust than most do in their day jobs. I respect that. He's far from a "yes man" but has somehow worked to get the balance right.
He needs to choose his battles and be seen to be progressive. He can't win all the battles, but he can at least win the ones most important and make sure the Board do know the fans' feelings in no uncertain terms.
The only issue I have is that the public should know more about the battles he takes on and wins or loses. We don't need to know the nitty gritty details, but some feedback (via their site, the forums and press) would make a huge difference, in my opinion.
Actually think it represents good value for money. £15 to watch a Premier League side in action against Spanish opposition. Its a reasonable price when compared with other leisure activites such as going to cinema, entering 'fun parks' etc etc. Think some posters are still stuck in the late 80s/early 90s when it was £2.50 to watch us play Hereford, Bristol City, and even Real Sociadad on one occasion. There has to be a fine balance of competative pricing, and earning ability per game for the club, and i believe the club have got this spot on. Opiniions eh.
0
£15 for our home friendly on 13:32 - Jul 24 with 793 views
£15 for our home friendly on 13:14 - Jul 24 by Starsky
Yea we heard you the first time. Not a very constructive, practical stance to take is it?
What's not constructive and practical about it? Surely if those on the Trust Board are not delivering the wishes of those individuals, they should stand for election and set about achieving those changes themselves. There are far too many people who moan about situations in life , who are in reality will not proactively try and obtain change.
£15 for our home friendly on 13:17 - Jul 24 by MoscowJack
I used to wonder what Huw Cooze did. I wondered whether he did it to help build his company because of the printing etc of matchday programmes etc.
Over the past few years, I've met and got to know many past and present Trust board members and I've completely changed my mind.
He cares about the fans! A lot. He works harder for the Trust than most do in their day jobs. I respect that. He's far from a "yes man" but has somehow worked to get the balance right.
He needs to choose his battles and be seen to be progressive. He can't win all the battles, but he can at least win the ones most important and make sure the Board do know the fans' feelings in no uncertain terms.
The only issue I have is that the public should know more about the battles he takes on and wins or loses. We don't need to know the nitty gritty details, but some feedback (via their site, the forums and press) would make a huge difference, in my opinion.
So Huw Cooze runs his own business and prints programmes for the club?? Really?
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
£15 for our home friendly on 10:43 - Jul 24 by londonlisa2001
Oh there you go then - it's always been the same as it is now - my mistake. I had thought it in some way changed in one of the companies acts but perhaps not - I'm sure I recall some change. I'll have to start googling then same as Shaky rather than rely on memory :-) Well done Shaky - you've managed to prove I'm lying about everything because I made an error in the way things historically were done. Right about the way it's all done now though seemingly unless you've not found that bit in your books yet?
Let me give you a word of advice here, LyingLisa; when you are attempting to rewrite history you need make sure that at least a few days pass first, otherwise even the densest of your admirers like raynor and Blue Nile will start to frown.
Let's instead quickly recap the litany of your mistakes and lies:
1. In answers to Exiled's twice repeated question whether "directors vote. . . to give the shareholders a dividend" you said yes.
2. I then said that was wrong and started raising the finer points of dividend payments, to which you blustered "Shareholders always have to bloody approve it you complete moron"
3. However, after a little googling you then stumbled on the concept of interim dividends, where after you attempted a preemptive coverup of your blunder by declaring that never applied suggesting the reasons were too complicated for lesser mortals to understand.
4. You then claimed I was wrong because the link I supplied made reference to shareholder approved final dividends, even though I had in fact pointed out your original error in telling exiled that the directors paid the dividends, you audacious little psycopath.
5. You then claimed that the whole business about interim dividends was a recent invention brought about to address nonexistent practical problems, which I subsequently demonstrated was bollocks.
6. You then claimed I had only been able to catch you out through googling, despite the bleedin' obvious evidence to the contrary in the form of my snap of my bible textbook on UK company law.
7. You then claimed you had been right about how it is done currently all along -- errr "Shareholders always have to bloody approve it you complete moron" anybody?
8. Finally you then claimed with your typical little psycho's touch that you had only made a teeny weeny little mistake.
The Trust and its set up lost a lot of credibility when the then Trust Director Leigh Dineen was shoehorned on to main board of Directors through financial investment.
Nobody wants to lose the Trust and the Boards close working links - but how close have they now become?
Is it Huw Cooze who is the Trust Director? From the little I know of him and like Dineen, isn't he just another club apologiser who's close to the Board - very close?
"The Trust and its set up lost a lot of credibility when the then Trust Director Leigh Dineen was shoehorned on to main board of Directors through financial investment. "
This is all news to me. Can you quickly recap the story or point me in the direction of a link with some background?
£15 for our home friendly on 13:32 - Jul 24 by Witneyjack
What's not constructive and practical about it? Surely if those on the Trust Board are not delivering the wishes of those individuals, they should stand for election and set about achieving those changes themselves. There are far too many people who moan about situations in life , who are in reality will not proactively try and obtain change.
There seems no point in getting involved with the Trust if it in some way or another doesn't financially (or otherwise) benefit one's business interests...
We really are a "jobs for the boys" club aren't we, behind this bullsh1t mantra of run by supporters for supporters. Pah!!
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
£15 for our home friendly on 13:44 - Jul 24 by Shaky
"The Trust and its set up lost a lot of credibility when the then Trust Director Leigh Dineen was shoehorned on to main board of Directors through financial investment. "
This is all news to me. Can you quickly recap the story or point me in the direction of a link with some background?
Good to see you T2C.
Of course it's news to you you know f*ck all about Swansea City because you're not a Swansea City supporter.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
£15 for our home friendly on 13:44 - Jul 24 by Shaky
"The Trust and its set up lost a lot of credibility when the then Trust Director Leigh Dineen was shoehorned on to main board of Directors through financial investment. "
This is all news to me. Can you quickly recap the story or point me in the direction of a link with some background?
Good to see you T2C.
It just kinda happened, Shaky... I don't think there are any links of note out there. This is an excerpt from one link I found on Google (yep, "that" Google) ;-)
""In January 2002, a package and draft Consortium agreement was put together with the aid of Swans fan and Solicitor Steve Penny, who had offered his services free in the campaign to oust Tony Petty, and he, along with Tim Jones, Mel Nurse and David Morgan, travelled to a meeting in Cardiff to meet Petty. Thankfully, the offer of £20,000 to buy out Petty was accepted and a further meeting was called in the Sea Haven Hotel on 6th February to discuss the Consortium Agreement, which would become a signed agreement for the formation of Swansea City Football 2001 Limited.
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.
The Trust were allowed additional time to obtain their £50,000 investment as the other consortium members were Corporate bodies, there was also agreement that the Trust could have a Director for their investment and also be allowed to invest a further £50,000, which would entitle them to a further seat on the newly formed Board of Directors. The Trust Board agreed that Leigh Dineen would become the Supporter Director, and would form part of a Management team, along with other investors, to run the Club as a Committee.
The Supporters Trust were paramount in ensuring that the Consortium became a reality, something which is not universally appreciated by fans and investors alike. The current Club Board and current Shareholders, apart from Leigh Dineen who became our Supporter Director, were not involved at the outset but became involved as the months progressed. We are firmly of the belief that as long as there is a Swansea City Football Club there will be a Supporters Trust, a body that will remain a Shareholder long after other current Shareholders""
Leigh has by all accounts a successful vending machine business. One minute he was the Trust Director, voice of the people etc, the next he was "able" to buy, what is it? 50,000 shares and become a Club Director. No announcements at the time - no questions asked and no doubt no laws broken, but still...
History repeating itself.
As far as I can see from the outside quite a few involved with the Trust have personal interests in being involved with the club.
That shouldn't be, should it?
Good to "see" you too, pal :)
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
£15 for our home friendly on 13:42 - Jul 24 by Shaky
Let me give you a word of advice here, LyingLisa; when you are attempting to rewrite history you need make sure that at least a few days pass first, otherwise even the densest of your admirers like raynor and Blue Nile will start to frown.
Let's instead quickly recap the litany of your mistakes and lies:
1. In answers to Exiled's twice repeated question whether "directors vote. . . to give the shareholders a dividend" you said yes.
2. I then said that was wrong and started raising the finer points of dividend payments, to which you blustered "Shareholders always have to bloody approve it you complete moron"
3. However, after a little googling you then stumbled on the concept of interim dividends, where after you attempted a preemptive coverup of your blunder by declaring that never applied suggesting the reasons were too complicated for lesser mortals to understand.
4. You then claimed I was wrong because the link I supplied made reference to shareholder approved final dividends, even though I had in fact pointed out your original error in telling exiled that the directors paid the dividends, you audacious little psycopath.
5. You then claimed that the whole business about interim dividends was a recent invention brought about to address nonexistent practical problems, which I subsequently demonstrated was bollocks.
6. You then claimed I had only been able to catch you out through googling, despite the bleedin' obvious evidence to the contrary in the form of my snap of my bible textbook on UK company law.
7. You then claimed you had been right about how it is done currently all along -- errr "Shareholders always have to bloody approve it you complete moron" anybody?
8. Finally you then claimed with your typical little psycho's touch that you had only made a teeny weeny little mistake.
What next, Lisa?
[Post edited 24 Jul 2014 13:48]
I quite genuinely think there's something seriously the matter with you and I have frankly lost even the slightest interest in debating with someone who is so obviously disturbed.
I'm the psychopath? Really?? God I really really hope you don't have children and I am not joking when I say that.
0
£15 for our home friendly on 14:16 - Jul 24 with 676 views
£15 for our home friendly on 14:12 - Jul 24 by londonlisa2001
I quite genuinely think there's something seriously the matter with you and I have frankly lost even the slightest interest in debating with someone who is so obviously disturbed.
I'm the psychopath? Really?? God I really really hope you don't have children and I am not joking when I say that.
Lisa, let me tell you there has never been a debate between the two of us, because I eat people for breakfast who are far smarter, more knowledgeable, and much better bullshitters than you.
Now run along you pathologically lying little psychopath.
£15 for our home friendly on 14:16 - Jul 24 by Shaky
Lisa, let me tell you there has never been a debate between the two of us, because I eat people for breakfast who are far smarter, more knowledgeable, and much better bullshitters than you.
Now run along you pathologically lying little psychopath.
Why don't you eat me for breakfast when I say you're not a Swansea City supporter?
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
£15 for our home friendly on 14:16 - Jul 24 by Shaky
Lisa, let me tell you there has never been a debate between the two of us, because I eat people for breakfast who are far smarter, more knowledgeable, and much better bullshitters than you.
Now run along you pathologically lying little psychopath.
Be nice to see some evidence of that. All you come across on here is as a bit of a psycho who knows how to use Google and bore people into submission.
You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help.
0
£15 for our home friendly on 14:21 - Jul 24 with 656 views
£15 for our home friendly on 14:17 - Jul 24 by Darran
Why don't you eat me for breakfast when I say you're not a Swansea City supporter?
Because based on your definition of what it means to be a supporter - **unquestioning** loyalty to the club - you are right.
I personally see the role of a supporter somewhat differently. In particular I believe the true supporter offers valid criticism and feedback; how else can we hope to improve imperfect institutions?
There seems no point in getting involved with the Trust if it in some way or another doesn't financially (or otherwise) benefit one's business interests...
We really are a "jobs for the boys" club aren't we, behind this bullsh1t mantra of run by supporters for supporters. Pah!!
If everybody took that attitude in life, nothing would change. It seems to me that those that "moan" don't want change really as it would mean they can't continue to beat the club and those that run it.
As the quotation says "If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude."
There are some on here who could learn something from that..........
0
£15 for our home friendly on 14:23 - Jul 24 with 651 views
£15 for our home friendly on 14:21 - Jul 24 by Shaky
Because based on your definition of what it means to be a supporter - **unquestioning** loyalty to the club - you are right.
I personally see the role of a supporter somewhat differently. In particular I believe the true supporter offers valid criticism and feedback; how else can we hope to improve imperfect institutions?
Let's start with financial support,how much have you spent on tickets for the Vetch? How much have you spent on tickets for the Liberty?
Vocal support,how many times have you seen Swansea City play live in the flesh not on the internet?
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
