| The future of SCFC 09:32 - Nov 11 with 41412 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]
|  |
| |  |
| The future of SCFC on 22:16 - Oct 25 with 1120 views | blueytheblue |
| The future of SCFC on 22:13 - Oct 25 by Daggyjack |
Fair play Shaky, you are a condescending idiot. |
Can't spell Wikipedia either... |  |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 22:40 - Oct 25 with 1045 views | TheResurrection |
I don't have a lot of time for this fella but I think this is my favourite ever post on here.
It's about Darran Teabag |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 23:53 - Dec 23 with 680 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:20 - Dec 10 by NOTRAC |
Let's be honest about it .Jenkins is selling his shares and making a fortune. The Americans are buying the Stadium from the council.
The Trust are getting nothing.
Eventually the whole lot will be sold off and the Americans will make a fortune.
And by that time the Trust involvement will have been watered down so that their influence almost disappears.
The sound of what we are being told stinks more and more.
People that we once trusted can smell massive money and they really couldn't care a shit.
The Trust are only concerned in retaining their 21% which now and in the long term means bug gar all.
Unfortunately the Trust can't see it.
It is time to call an Extraordinary meeting of the Trust as soon as possible!!! |
Different Yanks but similar scenario | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 23:55 - Dec 23 with 679 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:29 - Dec 10 by londonlisa2001 |
I agree re the closed doors bit. Bit I do believe that the Trust has a friend (look, I'm not saying they will do anything to protect the Trust but I believe that they do care about it).
Oh, and I don't agree with the NOTRAC post 100% - I believe a lot of it, but in my opinion, he's got the name wrong. |
They do care about the Trust??? Whoa!! | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:07 - Dec 24 with 663 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 21:20 - Dec 10 by jackonicko |
Amazing how a sham forum extracted that little nugget on the possibility of the stadium purchase that was never heard before.
Or direct confirmation of the specific American involvement (which I don't think has been confirmed before).
Or the fact it's the only deal on the table (not exploring the 'range' of opportunities in the last statement.
Or HJs own views on the deal - not the done deal that many on here presumed it was before the forum.
Or the fact that it is existing shareholders selling, not new equity. We may have surmised, but have the horses mouth now.
Or the view on ticket prices for season tickets and match day. We may not like the answer but I've never heard the board speak so openly about it before.
On football matters, we got chapter and verse on the Vorm saga. That generated hundreds of posts on here when our club's conduct was complained about. We now know what happened.
HJ also talked about the week post the Laudrup sacking - but one of the other hundred there will gave to post the answer to that question as frankly I can't remember it.
Not bad at all for a sham session. And we also managed to deal with multiple questions on Alan Tates testimonial! Sometimes, just because you're paranoid, they're really not out all to get you. You're just paranoid.
One other thing I remembered. hJ spoke a lot about Charlton based on a question from Garbo, and what happened to them when they reached for the next level. hJ said that this was something they considered in any possible transaction. He also said that it was an absolute pre-condition that the Americans would not be allowed to do a Glazers, and load up the balance sheet with debt to pay for their equity.
HJ was also very dubious on debt and selling forward seasies throughout the evening. If he retains that view on debt, and there is no new equity, then where is all of this money coming from to satisfy the councils Machiavellian change of heart.
You put all of the above together, plus the 'body language' which if you weren't there, I'm sorry but I can't do justice to, but that is one shareholder at least who is not just 100% focused on a payday. Now the other shareholders might be, but they weren't all there to ask.
Not bad for an hours work. Compare that with what came out from the Port Talbot one. And it was done without vitriol or rancour. I think the London fans did all of us proud.
Some good ground work. There may be times in the future for shouting and screaming. But not yet. |
This post is funny!
Trying to justify it wasn't a sham forum but evidencing exactly why it was.
Particularly liked this bit on Jenkins:-
""but that is one shareholder at least who is not just 100% focused on a payday. Now the other shareholders might be, but they weren't all there to ask. ""
Gee - hindsight can be a right bitch. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:10 - Dec 24 with 643 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 01:17 - Dec 11 by Uxbridge |
Oh and Jacko's post. That. All day. |
Oh God... Ux only went and endorsed it!! | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:48 - Dec 24 with 628 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 12:45 - Dec 12 by Shaky |
That point has now been made to death.
Equally the issue of whether new shares of existing shares were to be sold to the American investors was done to death several weeks ago, to the point where everyman and his dog understood the significance. Even St Dav was able to pen a 1,200 word tautological essay on the subject.
The really interesting question is what caused the collective minds of the people attending the London Forum to suddenly go collectively blank on that score? I would expect even somebody I regularly refer to as noclue to have sufficient nous to enquire about this.
Based on the reports I have heard I think the issue is the mood of the meeting. It strikes me there was a mood of "we're all in this kind of thing together" and what a bunch of good blokes we all are. A most tangible esprit de corps, if you will.
In my view it is the same feeling that permeates the thinking of the Trust with respect to the corporate governance issues under discussion, but in a much more dangerous manifestation; we're all such f*cking good blokes there is no need for this ted rape, after all our word is as good as our bond.
And that level of blase self belief and mutual backslapping is a recipe for disaster. |
Superb stuff from Shaky
""Based on the reports I have heard I think the issue is the mood of the meeting. It strikes me there was a mood of "we're all in this kind of thing together" and what a bunch of good blokes we all are. A most tangible esprit de corps, if you will.
In my view it is the same feeling that permeates the thinking of the Trust with respect to the corporate governance issues under discussion, but in a much more dangerous manifestation; we're all such f*cking good blokes there is no need for this ted rape, after all our word is as good as our bond.
And that level of blase self belief and mutual backslapping is a recipe for disaster."" | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:55 - Dec 24 with 622 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:49 - Dec 12 by londonlisa2001 |
oh sorry. I meant that I have thought for a while that Huw Jenkins is not the problem so much as Leigh Dineen and some of the other board members.
I was asking Uxbridge if, therefore, his saying that he was happy with the answers of Huw (as opposed to the 'Board') was deliberate, since there has been a suggestion that Huw and Leigh did not appear to speak as one voice during the event. |
Oh God :-( | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 01:03 - Dec 24 with 619 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:47 - Dec 13 by NeathJack |
It's called not having an agenda son.
As I've said previously I don't think the current shareholders should profit from any share sale, or is it too convenient for you to forget that?
However that is not a realistic scenario, but yes I do have faith in the current shareholders to do us as a club, and a fanbase right.
How have they done so far?
As for my "put downs" whatever they may be, it's called simply disagreeing with a point of view. |
Faith? | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 01:05 - Dec 24 with 616 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 08:05 - Dec 13 by NOTRAC |
The trouble is that although these are the same shareholders who stood up to Petty,rolls are now reversed.Are they going to be so concerned about the future of the Club when their own future can be secured by now accepting a deal that can have a life changing scenario for them and their families.
These are the same shareholders who have already had their original monies repaid threefold through dividends.
The same shareholders who have changed their shares into their private companies for apparently tax saving purposes.
The same shareholders who could allow the Trust to increase their shareholding to really safeguard the future of the Club, but who haven't.Why?
If I was a representative of the Trust I wouldn't trust any of them one inch.That may be wrong, but it is the safest way.
As for keeping things quiet .Why?
Is all going to be revealed when it's to late.
Dangerous at the moment. |
Once again, Notrac summed it up nicely | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 04:17 - Dec 24 with 572 views | DJack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 23:53 - Dec 23 by TheResurrection |
Different Yanks but similar scenario |
Unusually, here, you are wrong...The second set combined with the board were part of a conspiracy of silence. Even your mate Shakey could not have permeated their screen and affected the outcome no matter how much he might have (by chance/cynicism) guessed/known their intent.
If he was as clever as he states he could have/would have directed us at the appropriate moment to defeat these guys...but guess what, with the silence he had nothing to go on just like the rest of us. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 04:20 - Dec 24 with 571 views | DJack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 00:07 - Dec 24 by TheResurrection |
This post is funny!
Trying to justify it wasn't a sham forum but evidencing exactly why it was.
Particularly liked this bit on Jenkins:-
""but that is one shareholder at least who is not just 100% focused on a payday. Now the other shareholders might be, but they weren't all there to ask. ""
Gee - hindsight can be a right bitch. |
"Gee - hindsight can be a right bitch."
Here you undermine your own arguments...Hindsight is always after the event.
I can guess the lottery numbers correctly but probably not for the correct night except in hindsight. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 04:23 - Dec 24 with 568 views | DJack |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 01:05 - Dec 24 by TheResurrection |
Once again, Notrac summed it up nicely |
Here, you are on the money. My only caveat is ,once again, that we believed that the board were going in the same direction as the fans. It is easy to be cynical and appear to be correct. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
