| The future of SCFC 09:32 - Nov 11 with 41419 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 15:08 - Dec 10 with 1816 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Forum - London on 15:04 - Dec 10 by _ |
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? |
We've never exchanged PM's on any topic to my knowledge.
The Saturday meeting was as robust in terms of the questioning as any meeting you are ever likely to attend. The answers, particularly from HJ were equally forthright I feel. I got the answers I wanted, however the test is always what happens in practice.
In truth, we shall see what happens, but if HJ's comments are taken at face value then the Trust have at least one friend on the board who will ensure they are protected. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:12 - Dec 10 with 1796 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:00 - Dec 10 by 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! |
""Oh, I'm not rising to that, T2C""
Thanks, finally, for the update ;-) | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:13 - Dec 10 with 1793 views | Phil_S |
Genuinely has never ceased to amaze me how people complain that these things are taken over by people who ask questions they don't want to listen to but then they never attend to ask the questions themselves to change the format of the event
I enjoy a fans forum - enjoyed this one particularly because I wasn't doing much work just listening
And - for the record - nobody was asked not to take minutes or not to talk about the event. That just suits the agenda of the people who weren't there... |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:16 - Dec 10 with 1783 views | jackonicko |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:12 - Dec 10 by _ |
""Oh, I'm not rising to that, T2C""
Thanks, finally, for the update ;-) |
Any thoughts on what was said, now you've had it?
I'm sending you an invoice at my hourly rate by the way. Perchie will be on to me next for using the internet at work :) |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:19 - Dec 10 with 1772 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:16 - Dec 10 by jackonicko |
Any thoughts on what was said, now you've had it?
I'm sending you an invoice at my hourly rate by the way. Perchie will be on to me next for using the internet at work :) |
Bet you're playing Candy Crush too aren't you | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:19 - Dec 10 with 1768 views | SkewenJack |
So what was said? |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:19 - Dec 10 with 1766 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:13 - Dec 10 by Phil_S |
Genuinely has never ceased to amaze me how people complain that these things are taken over by people who ask questions they don't want to listen to but then they never attend to ask the questions themselves to change the format of the event
I enjoy a fans forum - enjoyed this one particularly because I wasn't doing much work just listening
And - for the record - nobody was asked not to take minutes or not to talk about the event. That just suits the agenda of the people who weren't there... |
Well did I just dream up Jim White's post asking people not to broadcast or tweet the event? | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:20 - Dec 10 with 1758 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:16 - Dec 10 by jackonicko |
Any thoughts on what was said, now you've had it?
I'm sending you an invoice at my hourly rate by the way. Perchie will be on to me next for using the internet at work :) |
Yes, I'll come back to this.... | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:21 - Dec 10 with 1745 views | jackonicko |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:20 - Dec 10 by _ |
Yes, I'll come back to this.... |
Is the yes in relation to the issue of my invoice? Result :) | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:21 - Dec 10 with 1738 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:19 - Dec 10 by _ |
Well did I just dream up Jim White's post asking people not to broadcast or tweet the event? |
Which post would this be? As stated, this is my first time in the house since last Wednesday | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:24 - Dec 10 with 1735 views | perchrockjack |
who s at work then stealing from their employer then.
yOU ,YES YOU THERE.
LOL
Anyway, that bucked me up somewhat because this OP and the continued assassination by a few of our board is sickening really.
Its past comment except that chucking barbs via a chat room aint helping our club and made worse when the barbs are so cravenly made as they wont be done in a public forum.
Thank God for the people we have ....Sumbler too | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:36 - Dec 10 with 1682 views | Professor |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:24 - Dec 10 by perchrockjack |
who s at work then stealing from their employer then.
yOU ,YES YOU THERE.
LOL
Anyway, that bucked me up somewhat because this OP and the continued assassination by a few of our board is sickening really.
Its past comment except that chucking barbs via a chat room aint helping our club and made worse when the barbs are so cravenly made as they wont be done in a public forum.
Thank God for the people we have ....Sumbler too |
Absolutely.
I have just read Hereford United have been suspended from all football-they were already kicked out of the Conference due to financial and board mismanagement. Not everything is right and yes there can be questions asked, but let's have some perspective as to where we stand and where we have come from. | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:21 - Dec 10 with 1585 views | Pegojack |
Here's an idea, I'm just throwing it in here, and I might attend the next fans' forum to put it directly to Huw.
How about the existing shareholders all giving (yes, giving as in - free, gratis, no charge) a portion of their shares to the Trust, sufficient to take the Trust's total shareholding to 51%. the amount each shareholder gives would be proportional to his total holding.
They could then be given carte blanche to flog off their remaining shares (or not) to anyone they wish, and retire into the sunset with many millions of quid profit made, plus the undying thanks of the entire Jack fraternity and elevation to legend status.
Why should they? Well, I'll tell you. Because they allege they are Swans fans first and foremost. OK, prove it in the best way possible, by giving ownership to the body that represents the fans. You'll still walk away with a huge financial gain for the risks you took.
Comments? |  | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:31 - Dec 10 with 1563 views | _ |
Jacko:
-- 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?
With all due respect I physically could not attend this meeting — but like I’ve said already, these sort of events are not my cup of tea. I also think they are next to useless, as it’s proved this time, unfortunately. You don’t get answers to important questions, rarely anyway, under circumstances like these. Everything is scripted and prepared. Being “candid” means naff all in my opinion. HJ played a blinder it seems. My theory on getting the relevant answers would be more from the theory of “Action = Reaction” but whilst these forums are being held, and by all accounts are funded, even if only partially, from the Trust’s coffers then perhaps a Trust board member should be responsible for making sure the minutes are taken and info reported back to us all. Who sits on the Trust Board at the moment. We have Huw Cooze as Supporters Director, Phil Sumbler as Chairmen, how many board members have we got and who are they? Is this info on the Trust site?
-- 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.
50/50 to go ahead says it all to me. Without being there and seeing this “body language” then as clear as day from that, they’re looking to cash in, but I guess we already knew that by now. It’s like asking your parents for that special gift as a kid and them coming back and saying “we’ll see” — It wasn’t a “NO” from HJ so they are actively pursuing this and we should be getting ready. There are strong rumours that club board members are very keen to sell and to many of us this has come as quite a shock. I guess we were all oblivious to this up until a few months ago and as far as I see it these are critical months because once the ink has dried and hands shook, it’s bye-bye from us, the supporters, in terms of fan involvement. I understand to a certain degree about Non-Disclosure Agreements but that must only apply to non-shareholders, surely, of which we are not. I’m not asking for contract details just a bit more than “body language”.
-- 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.
Very much alive where? I think if you were to canvas opinion of the supporters now many would argue that load of bollox went a long time ago.
-- As i noted above, if the Americans 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.
How would this be addressed? Would this be a Trust decision as I’d be concerned with that with half of them tied in with personal business interests in the club and the other half happy to get pissed at forums and not keep their members informed ;) — But seriously, how?
- 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.
This has been done to death and as far as I see it, there’s nothing us fans can do about it apart from not turn up — which isn’t an option at all. The prices are out of kilter with local income levels and the stadium not big enough to cope with demand so DIneen has us over a barrel. The continuously badly run commercial department he seems to get away with and again, what gets done about it?!
-- 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.
This is now an official JOKE!! We have been promised and promised and led up the garden path to the point that no one will now believe anything we are told. If you ask me the diggers are not going in because of the whole investment saga. Like I said, a joke! | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:32 - Dec 10 with 1561 views | Parlay |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:21 - Dec 10 by Pegojack |
Here's an idea, I'm just throwing it in here, and I might attend the next fans' forum to put it directly to Huw.
How about the existing shareholders all giving (yes, giving as in - free, gratis, no charge) a portion of their shares to the Trust, sufficient to take the Trust's total shareholding to 51%. the amount each shareholder gives would be proportional to his total holding.
They could then be given carte blanche to flog off their remaining shares (or not) to anyone they wish, and retire into the sunset with many millions of quid profit made, plus the undying thanks of the entire Jack fraternity and elevation to legend status.
Why should they? Well, I'll tell you. Because they allege they are Swans fans first and foremost. OK, prove it in the best way possible, by giving ownership to the body that represents the fans. You'll still walk away with a huge financial gain for the risks you took.
Comments? |
You are spot on of course is my comment.
But greed has now set in and there is no way that will happen. We are as fan oriented as any other club now in reality, in fact less so than many.
We have a trust but its almost worthless in reality. The trust are supposed to represent the fans yet we are told nothing about a very important meeting of which we were represented.
The club is now made up of small self serving groups rather than spokesmen for the majority and club-barers for the future. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:40 - Dec 10 with 1540 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:16 - Dec 10 by jackonicko |
Any thoughts on what was said, now you've had it?
I'm sending you an invoice at my hourly rate by the way. Perchie will be on to me next for using the internet at work :) |
as a complete aside, I was hugely amused to receive an email from a colleague of yours that has a name that is identical to a somewhat unlikely username on this forum. I thought it was a joke for a bit ... | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:45 - Dec 10 with 1530 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:32 - Dec 10 by Parlay |
You are spot on of course is my comment.
But greed has now set in and there is no way that will happen. We are as fan oriented as any other club now in reality, in fact less so than many.
We have a trust but its almost worthless in reality. The trust are supposed to represent the fans yet we are told nothing about a very important meeting of which we were represented.
The club is now made up of small self serving groups rather than spokesmen for the majority and club-barers for the future. |
""The club is now made up of small self serving groups rather than spokesmen for the majority and club-barers for the future.""
This is my feeling as well. The whole Trust set up is made up of exactly this too.
The only difference these days to the dark ones of old is football success and more money swishing round. The figures posted recently on here from the accounts showing who's benefitting from all this said it all.
Our own "Supporters Director" with what was it, around £150k paid to his business and our last "Supporters Director" who was somehow able to join the board itself around £90k - not accounting for his fat salary on top.
Who "also" benefitted from the Landore project is nobody's business it seems.... | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:52 - Dec 10 with 1511 views | Phil_S |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:32 - Dec 10 by Parlay |
You are spot on of course is my comment.
But greed has now set in and there is no way that will happen. We are as fan oriented as any other club now in reality, in fact less so than many.
We have a trust but its almost worthless in reality. The trust are supposed to represent the fans yet we are told nothing about a very important meeting of which we were represented.
The club is now made up of small self serving groups rather than spokesmen for the majority and club-barers for the future. |
Its probably worth remembering that this was a Trust organised event not a Trust meeting where we posed the questions of the Trust board
So the fact that you consider it 'worthless' actually isn't the Trust's fault but due to the apathy of those who want to know the answers not bothering to attend.
Big big difference which you need to step back and understand before you want to take sideswipes at the third biggest shareholder in the club
This was no more than a Q&A of past players and directors of the club, all of whom asked the questions they were posed on the night
If you expected to get detailed ins and outs of things that are probably covered by NDAs and the like then again you need to step back and understand. To say the Trust is worthless at this point in time is so far wide of the mark I do not know where to start but a little understanding of what you can expect to see at this stage and what you can't would go a long way to helping you
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:53 - Dec 10 with 1509 views | _ |
It's also very confusing to now hear that acquiring the ownership of the stadium is now a possibility when I'm sure they have discounted this completely in the past.
Has this got something to do with our good friends from across the water with the billions in their back pocket? | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:03 - Dec 10 with 1467 views | Uxbridge |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:53 - Dec 10 by _ |
It's also very confusing to now hear that acquiring the ownership of the stadium is now a possibility when I'm sure they have discounted this completely in the past.
Has this got something to do with our good friends from across the water with the billions in their back pocket? |
It is indeed a change in tack, but I think that's more to do with local politics than anything else. Can't buy what's not for sale. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:06 - Dec 10 with 1455 views | Parlay |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:53 - Dec 10 by _ |
It's also very confusing to now hear that acquiring the ownership of the stadium is now a possibility when I'm sure they have discounted this completely in the past.
Has this got something to do with our good friends from across the water with the billions in their back pocket? |
Im sure the words from Jenkins' mouth was "non starter".
For me it is a delaying tactic and reason to wait even longer before expanding, if we ever will. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:11 - Dec 10 with 1433 views | Darran |
Since Uxbridge has been on the Trust board he's become Uxswizz. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:12 - Dec 10 with 1424 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:03 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
It is indeed a change in tack, but I think that's more to do with local politics than anything else. Can't buy what's not for sale. |
Oh yeah so they're going to sell it for cheap now are they?
One minute we can't compete financially the next there's a possibility to buy the stadium??
That's more than just "politics" And.... | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:15 - Dec 10 with 1405 views | _ |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 16:52 - Dec 10 by Phil_S |
Its probably worth remembering that this was a Trust organised event not a Trust meeting where we posed the questions of the Trust board
So the fact that you consider it 'worthless' actually isn't the Trust's fault but due to the apathy of those who want to know the answers not bothering to attend.
Big big difference which you need to step back and understand before you want to take sideswipes at the third biggest shareholder in the club
This was no more than a Q&A of past players and directors of the club, all of whom asked the questions they were posed on the night
If you expected to get detailed ins and outs of things that are probably covered by NDAs and the like then again you need to step back and understand. To say the Trust is worthless at this point in time is so far wide of the mark I do not know where to start but a little understanding of what you can expect to see at this stage and what you can't would go a long way to helping you
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Not worthless in terms of our stakeholding, not worthless in terms of money in the bank....
But seemingly worthless in terms of improving badly run aspects of the club, having the necessary stern voice to go into battle for it's members, then if not, start proving otherwise. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:16 - Dec 10 with 1403 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 17:03 - Dec 10 by Uxbridge |
It is indeed a change in tack, but I think that's more to do with local politics than anything else. Can't buy what's not for sale. |
to be fair - I'm not sure that's actually the case though.
The council are no more likely or not to sell now than 6 months ago - they've been skint for ages and there has always been a price at which they would sell.
this is a change of tack from the club, it seems, rather than the council. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
