| The future of SCFC 09:32 - Nov 11 with 41242 views | _ |
Can we start a thread to get some structure at the meeting night before West Ham. I'm not going to the game and won't be in the country that weekend and I've also heard the Q&A session can be a bit ad hoc let's say. Dav and ARQS have asked some serious questions.
Do you think it's possible for the ones going to go in ready with structured questions?
I wouldn't necessarily want these questions on a public forum but I'm sure anyone that wants something answered can get their questions to the Trust people or the ones attending that night.
That would only take just a little organising and a panel could decide the best say 10 questions to take to Leigh and Huw. I'm sure someone at the event could also set up a video link or at least record it? [Post edited 13 Dec 2014 15:26]
|  |
| |  |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:13 - Dec 10 with 2022 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:07 - Dec 10 by _ |
These question would have been great to have beforehand?? Are you serious?
As far as I'm seeing all this then the Trust itself has done its members no favours at all.
It's not good enough. Something very fishy about it all.
We can "trust" no-one it seems. |
Oh give over. I asked you earlier if you wanted any specific questions asked and you didn't say anything. Now you do afterwards. Can't blame anyone else for a specific question not being asked I'm afraid.
There's no cover up. Nobody was asked not to say what was said there, at least not until the meeting had finished. All questions were answered as openly as you could expect. Feel free to read something else into that if you wish, but I didn't see it. If you think I'm covering something myself then that's fine too but forgive me if I call bullshit on that. |  |
| |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:13 - Dec 10 with 2021 views | _ |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:09 - Dec 10 by Darran |
Uxbridge is covering up by the sound of it. |
They all are. They were all so "up for the fight" going there....
I have confidence in the London crowd to ask the important questions they said. A 20 page thread a couple of weeks before with a multitude of questions asked from concerned fans and trust members and now it's as cloudy as the shit beer they were all getting drunk on.
How Cooze and Jim White both heavily involved in personal business interests linked to SCFC and serving (badly) the fans at large.
We supposedly own 21% of the club, we are the second largest stakeholder but the "jobs for the boys" and greed culture stinks right through.
What use is the Trust?? It's not good enough - not by half. | |
| |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:17 - Dec 10 with 2002 views | perchrockjack |
So not only is the Board clueless and /or bent the Trust is now useless.
So there s only one thing for it then...
Incredible stuff |  |
| |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:18 - Dec 10 with 1997 views | _ |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:13 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
Oh give over. I asked you earlier if you wanted any specific questions asked and you didn't say anything. Now you do afterwards. Can't blame anyone else for a specific question not being asked I'm afraid.
There's no cover up. Nobody was asked not to say what was said there, at least not until the meeting had finished. All questions were answered as openly as you could expect. Feel free to read something else into that if you wish, but I didn't see it. If you think I'm covering something myself then that's fine too but forgive me if I call bullshit on that. |
Bollox - I started this thread in the hope that all questions could be actually put to Jenkins and Dineen and you were the first one to reply and quash that idea - so don't go giving me that shoite.
I've asked no more questions on here today than were asked a million times by lots and lots and lots of different posters. I can't believe the apathy from Trust board members and Jim White asking for the event to not be tweeted, well he needs to stand down immediately. | |
| |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:20 - Dec 10 with 1985 views | _ |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:17 - Dec 10 by perchrockjack |
So not only is the Board clueless and /or bent the Trust is now useless.
So there s only one thing for it then...
Incredible stuff |
Have an opinion of your own and come at us with it. Don't go spending your retirement just opposing anything I have to say. WTF is wrong with you? | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:26 - Dec 10 with 1958 views | Darran |
Uxbridge has changed,I can see the directors box clearly from where I sit and I shall report back when I see Uxbridge mingling in there which I'm sure will be soon. |  |
| |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:28 - Dec 10 with 1945 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:18 - Dec 10 by _ |
Bollox - I started this thread in the hope that all questions could be actually put to Jenkins and Dineen and you were the first one to reply and quash that idea - so don't go giving me that shoite.
I've asked no more questions on here today than were asked a million times by lots and lots and lots of different posters. I can't believe the apathy from Trust board members and Jim White asking for the event to not be tweeted, well he needs to stand down immediately. |
"If there's anything specific you would like asked then I'm sure we could look to accommodate that during any lulls in the Q&A. "
Yeah, trying to quash it I was.
I'm not your skivvy. If you had something you specifically wanted asking you should have said. You didn't, so don't go blaming me because you didn't get the answers to the questions you want answering.
Me, I did get the answers I wanted. It was good to hear Jenkins speak passionately about protecting the Trust during any takeover, and about ensuring the long-term future of the club and making sure any buyers buy into that. That's the stuff I wanted to hear about. I already know the film was a total fiction, and it doesn't interest me half as much as the other stuff does. If I had issues with the Trust board members personal dealings then I wouldn't wait for a Fans Forum, especially one I wasn't going to attend, and would seek to get those answers myself.
As for the non tweeting, I don't think it was actually Jim who did that, particularly as I think it was Daf and Garbo who did the intros. But anyway, nobody talked about keeping the answers within the room but about ensuring it didn't become a distraction. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:30 - Dec 10 with 1938 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:26 - Dec 10 by Darran |
Uxbridge has changed,I can see the directors box clearly from where I sit and I shall report back when I see Uxbridge mingling in there which I'm sure will be soon. |
If I have achieved nothing else, it is to make you two best buddies again. I can sleep easy tonight ...
Remind me again what you said to be about T2C and his non attendance at the Liberty forum?  | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:32 - Dec 10 with 1924 views | skippyjack |
It does seem very conservative this Trust Forum.. what back handers have our board been dishing out.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:34 - Dec 10 with 1911 views | perchrockjack |
I ll spend my retirement as I please thanks all the same.
You have a few years left to reach such age and I wish I could wish you well.
Its yet another poisionous piece of self aggrandisement on your part acting the big nob on an internet site. "if you ask me", well nobody has or does> You are no more important than me, uxbridge or the janitor at the Liberty.
You ripping into the people who saved our club and broght PL to us. You obviosult are not old enough to remember the complete tossers we had as Board members/chairmen who made our club a laughing stock for years. We ve got respect now and its down to them . I can well recall ,after the 64 cup run, Trevor Morris and Gordon Daniels gorging themselves on selling our best players ,clueless people who took us to the abyss but you weren't born then and its why Im so proud to see us where we are .
If you know best, do and put your ideas into practice.,tell DINEED etc where they re ging wrong.
End | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:36 - Dec 10 with 1897 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:34 - Dec 10 by Darran |
I can't remember what I said but it was probably something along the lines of he's all mouth behind a keyboard but when it comes to facing up he's a tw*t.
Oh and he isn't my buddy and stop trying to change the subject. [Post edited 10 Dec 2014 14:34]
|
Who's changing the subject? I was just pointing out you're agreeing with him now when calling him all sorts when you turned up to one. I would use the H word here but it'll only upset people. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:40 - Dec 10 with 1877 views | Darran |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:36 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
Who's changing the subject? I was just pointing out you're agreeing with him now when calling him all sorts when you turned up to one. I would use the H word here but it'll only upset people. |
You are and I've been to plenty over the years. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:42 - Dec 10 with 1871 views | Parlay |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:36 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
Who's changing the subject? I was just pointing out you're agreeing with him now when calling him all sorts when you turned up to one. I would use the H word here but it'll only upset people. |
He regularly insults him and then complains when he reacts. "Hes got issues mun" |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:44 - Dec 10 with 1859 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:40 - Dec 10 by Darran |
You are and I've been to plenty over the years. |
Yes we have. I've been to a few London ones in particular too. Nothing different about this one to the last in regards to how they operated. It seems some people are upset because those in attendance had better things to do on a Saturday night than keep non-attendees informed. It's very odd. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:47 - Dec 10 with 1724 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:42 - Dec 10 by Parlay |
He regularly insults him and then complains when he reacts. "Hes got issues mun" |
He certainly seems to. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:48 - Dec 10 with 1718 views | Darran |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:44 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
Yes we have. I've been to a few London ones in particular too. Nothing different about this one to the last in regards to how they operated. It seems some people are upset because those in attendance had better things to do on a Saturday night than keep non-attendees informed. It's very odd. |
Of course it's different there's never been as many important questions to ask in the past.
#sham | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:53 - Dec 10 with 1702 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:44 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
Yes we have. I've been to a few London ones in particular too. Nothing different about this one to the last in regards to how they operated. It seems some people are upset because those in attendance had better things to do on a Saturday night than keep non-attendees informed. It's very odd. |
How do these forums work? How are they funded? What are they for? | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:53 - Dec 10 with 1692 views | Parlay |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:47 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
He certainly seems to. |
Ah well, it keeps him occupied i guess. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:57 - Dec 10 with 1679 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:53 - Dec 10 by _ |
How do these forums work? How are they funded? What are they for? |
People turn up. People ask questions. Simple really. You really should go to one.
The Trust would arrange them and cover any financial shortfall, although the London one at least is self-financing. In fact this one made a sizeable donation to Swansea Bravehearts, which I think is brilliant.
They're a chance to ask the club and Trust any questions you like. Kind of need to attend though.
I'm still not sure what people think has been kept quiet. The fact Jenkins was being very candid regarding the American investors spoke volumes I feel, if you think these things through. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:58 - Dec 10 with 1670 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:53 - Dec 10 by Parlay |
Ah well, it keeps him occupied i guess. |
Saves the taxpayer too, which in these times is important. This site is a service really. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:00 - Dec 10 with 1664 views | The_Bounder |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:53 - Dec 10 by _ |
How do these forums work? How are they funded? What are they for? |
Perhaps you act as a focal point and you could tweet/email Huw Cooze (Supporters Rep) with a series of questions that fans have raised over the last few weeks? |  |
| Sadly no longer in The Salisbury embracing Premier League football! |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:00 - Dec 10 with 1662 views | jackonicko |
Oh, I'm not rising to that, T2C. I haven't even posted on the board since sunday night. I often go days and weeks without posting. Life extends beyond planetswans.
Without wanting to sound trite, if you so wanted to know what was said, you could have gone. It was an open forum. Because you didn't have time to go, you expect everyone else to make time for you?
There is no consipracy - however, it is perfectly open for someone other than me and Ux to post what was said.
That said, a few more recollections from saturday:
- HJ said the deal was only 50/50 to go ahead. They were his words. My reading of the body language - and that's all it is - was that HJ may be a bit more sceptical than that. I think he still needs to be convinced.
- However, he did also say that change would have to come eventually. Apart from the Supporters Trust, none of the shareholders can live forever. A lighthearted aside was made about mini-LD inheriting the shareholding in the future - which in my mind became less amusing when i thought about the horror of one of our ballboys taking up the reigns!
- HJ spoke at length about the importance of the trust, how it had played a critical and important role in the success of the club to date and how the swansea owership model - unique in the Premier League - had been a fundamental part of the club's success. In HJs mind, the "by the fans, for the fans" is very much alive.
- As i noted above, if the Amercians took a stake, it would be existing shareholders selling to them, not issue of new shares.
- At the end, both HJ and LD were pointedly asked that if they chose to sell part or all of their stakes to an outsider, that they would ensure the future protection of supporters and the role of the supporters trust as a significant shareholder in the club was enshrined in any deal. Both agreed - indeed HJ said if the deal was not right for the Supporters and the Supporters Trust it would be difficult for any of the shareholders, as supporters as well, to go along with it. HJ said if the supporters didn't want it, it was unlikely to happen. I paraphrase and I don't have any notes, so don't take that as a direct quote.
- HJ and LD took some heavy and sustained questioning on prices - both for season tickets and match day tickets. It was clear that HJ and LD were at odds over this. LD was of the view that the importance of club revenue raised from ticket sales was an important component for the continued success of the club, HJ felt they were less so when considered in proportion to overall revenues (ie in comparison to TV revenues). The impression was very heavily hinted that this difference in view is forcibly and frankly discussed in board meetings!
- Suggestions around German Bundesliga type pricing and ownership were put to both HJ and LD. My sense was LD was the more resistant of the two to any kind of "Parlay" pricing approach to seasies and match day tickets.
- HJ confirmed that there is a possibility of the club acquiring ownership of the Liberty and those discussions continue. No hard figures on what that would cost or the timing of it.
- HJ also said that they recognised the need to expand (one member of the audience was very forceful in his view that the club had to expand now to capture the swans supporters of tomorrow, today). However, cost of expansion remains a very limiting factor alongside the continuing rising costs of running the football club.
- noone asked about jack to a king. I still haven't watched it so didn't feel able to anyway. But at least Richard Lillicrap wasn't forgotten at the forum, getting at least two name checks.
- on the football side, the best question of the evening was the Spurs/Michel Vorm story, which HJ was very transparent on. However, thats been covered elsewhere so won't repeat, but fair play to HJ for telling it like it is.
Well done to HJ, HC and also LD for fronting up.
What was my take on the evening? A lot of very good questions were asked, and many were answered well, but not always completely. Some of that will be due to constraints due to NDAs and similar, for which you can't blame them. However, I think the London forum served its purpose in that:
- it was very professionally run
- questions were asked intelligently and robustly, but there was no witchunt. It was kept at the right level and wasn't a mudslinging exercise
- HJ and LD will have heard from a wide cross section of fans what their views are on the big issues for our football club - the stadium, the need for investment, the commercial pricing, the future of the team.
- I doubt they thought it beforehand, bearing in mind our history, but they will have been left in no doubt that the fans will not be bought off by the lure of the US dollar. The deal has to be right, or they know it will be very difficult for it to happen at all.
Well done to Jim, Daf, Garbo for a top job on the night, and to those that put in the hard work beforehand. Thanks also to Ux for making me up the bidding on the signed match ball! |  | | |
| Trust Forum - London on 15:04 - Dec 10 with 1644 views | _ |
| Trust Forum - London on 14:28 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
"If there's anything specific you would like asked then I'm sure we could look to accommodate that during any lulls in the Q&A. "
Yeah, trying to quash it I was.
I'm not your skivvy. If you had something you specifically wanted asking you should have said. You didn't, so don't go blaming me because you didn't get the answers to the questions you want answering.
Me, I did get the answers I wanted. It was good to hear Jenkins speak passionately about protecting the Trust during any takeover, and about ensuring the long-term future of the club and making sure any buyers buy into that. That's the stuff I wanted to hear about. I already know the film was a total fiction, and it doesn't interest me half as much as the other stuff does. If I had issues with the Trust board members personal dealings then I wouldn't wait for a Fans Forum, especially one I wasn't going to attend, and would seek to get those answers myself.
As for the non tweeting, I don't think it was actually Jim who did that, particularly as I think it was Daf and Garbo who did the intros. But anyway, nobody talked about keeping the answers within the room but about ensuring it didn't become a distraction. |
How can one or two people tweeting or writing minutes be deemed a distraction FFS?
Whoever asked for that had a particular reason to and the sheer lack of information from the meeting tells its own story.
I have no intention of attending any of these meetings for these very reasons. They don't get anywhere and will always be hijacked by do-gooders and sycophants.
You can't beat the machine by this process and it's all just futile - as proved perfectly by this sham.
You all had a good night - great - I'm genuinely happy that you all did. But why dress up the whole occasion as something else.
Why all the outrage and passion and all the pm's about no due diligence being done by the Board of Directors whatsoever only to now report back that "oh we're all very happy"!!
What's changed then?
Because as far as I can see the Board are still itching to sell their shares - they have been speaking to American investors, but to what degree, and they apparently know next to nothing about them!!
How is that protecting the Trust? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
