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.
Lets get an idea from us fans in general as to the last 6 months or so. A 6 months that's seen us bought out by the Americans in a deal where the old owners sold their souls and us down the river.
We all know they did their best to keep the Trust away from discussions and tried wilfully to get the Trust to sign a legal document stating the old regime's Shareholders Agreement practically meant nothing.
Since then the Trust have parted company with their Supporters Director and Vice Chairman and have been threatening legal action throughout the whole time, also stating on many an occasion that "this can't go on much longer"
As we are now aware from recent statements the Trust feel they are "building bridges" and getting somewhere with the new regime. Do we think this is the right course of action and to trust the new American owners and the remaining old Directors, bearing in mind all that's gone on?
What do the fans think?
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action
[Post edited 21 Feb 2017 14:58]
* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM
I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 19:49 - Feb 27 by Shaky
Uxbridge informs me I have already contacted him indirectly via this thread.
I assume he is perfectly able to follow the arguments I have set out, but have additionally stated that he can email me if there is anything he wants to discuss. The Trust has my email address. T2C can supply my phone number if necessary.
I'm not a lawyer, so putting a case together is not for me even assuming my strategy is a flyer, but as far as I am concerned he owes us all some feedback, certainly by the end of the week. Reasonable?
[Post edited 27 Feb 2017 19:53]
That's an interesting interpretation of me saying I've forwarded on the link, but I know it's been read.
Anyway, not sure who you've given your contact details to, but I'm happy to pass them on if need be. I'm going to leave it to the lawyers to determine the relevant case law, but knowing Dai he's more than willing to discuss things with people if things they can be of benefit to the Trust ... as a couple of posters on here could testify.
"Fans" , now we ve seen just how some fans interact, judt htf can said fans combine or agree enough to take a meaningful part in what goes on at our club.
Ive seen virtual novels from God knows whom on here about what has and what should be done.
...from the sidelines
Whst needs to be done is to secure our prem league status then have the owners do what they said they d do
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 21:37 - Feb 27 by perchrockjack
My point ,which has been missed , is ...
"Fans" , now we ve seen just how some fans interact, judt htf can said fans combine or agree enough to take a meaningful part in what goes on at our club.
Ive seen virtual novels from God knows whom on here about what has and what should be done.
...from the sidelines
Whst needs to be done is to secure our prem league status then have the owners do what they said they d do
They need to do that
I understand what your opinions are Richy, although I respect them, I don't necessarily agree.
The "fans" that you're talking about came together when the Trust was formed and played their part in getting shot of Petty. If you had been at The Patti when many fans signed up to have a voice in their club, you would have been proud. This forum is not necessarily the voice of 20k fans.
Months ago at the Trust forum, we were informed that the Trust had changed some of its legal team, which I presume takes time to re-organise.
In my opinion, what is most important is to make secure...that professional football is safe in Swansea and West Wales. Making sure that our youngsters are never deprived of a league football club to call their own.
1
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 22:58 - Feb 27 with 1142 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 22:54 - Feb 27 by Swanseajill
I understand what your opinions are Richy, although I respect them, I don't necessarily agree.
The "fans" that you're talking about came together when the Trust was formed and played their part in getting shot of Petty. If you had been at The Patti when many fans signed up to have a voice in their club, you would have been proud. This forum is not necessarily the voice of 20k fans.
Months ago at the Trust forum, we were informed that the Trust had changed some of its legal team, which I presume takes time to re-organise.
In my opinion, what is most important is to make secure...that professional football is safe in Swansea and West Wales. Making sure that our youngsters are never deprived of a league football club to call their own.
What's that got to do with now ?
Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 23:07 - Feb 27 with 1123 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 22:58 - Feb 27 by swancity
What's that got to do with now ?
Richy is saying that we must secure Prem football at all costs.We don't have a cert that that is the case. He also thinks that fans can't agree on this forum (he's said so many times)
We also know little of the American plans, and the main aim is to secure league football for the future.
I don't have a voice in the club, the Trust does.
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 00:18 - Feb 28 with 1091 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 16:17 - Feb 23 by Landore_Jack
Question, did the Americans ask Jenkins to remain as CEO when he sold the club? Or was it a clause in the deal that he insisted on having? If the latter, does anybody know the length of time?
To most football fans or unattached American businessmen, Huw Jenkins will have been regarded as a hugely successful and shrewd individual who we should be eternally gratefull to.I think they'd have been keen to keep him on.
You have to be a die hard Swans fan with knowledge of the situation to really care and understand just how certain individuals and still media darlings have behaved.
Yet, if Clement keeps us up, Jenkins will again be seen as the man with the golden touch.
Only the unknowing or uncaring fan or business man would see anything different.
I voted for legal action because I know what sneaky, greedy, unloyal ratbags they've turned out to be and if there's anything to sue them for then they should be sued.I'd imagine it's all extremely murky.
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 01:29 - Feb 28 with 1067 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 00:18 - Feb 28 by Rancid
To most football fans or unattached American businessmen, Huw Jenkins will have been regarded as a hugely successful and shrewd individual who we should be eternally gratefull to.I think they'd have been keen to keep him on.
You have to be a die hard Swans fan with knowledge of the situation to really care and understand just how certain individuals and still media darlings have behaved.
Yet, if Clement keeps us up, Jenkins will again be seen as the man with the golden touch.
Only the unknowing or uncaring fan or business man would see anything different.
I voted for legal action because I know what sneaky, greedy, unloyal ratbags they've turned out to be and if there's anything to sue them for then they should be sued.I'd imagine it's all extremely murky.
Chris, this isn't about suing the old Directors.
This is about The Trust attempting to rewind the clock to just before the takeover was completed and retrospectively become a part of the deal "WE" were so underhandedly excluded from.
Through being unfairly prejudiced the Trust has been marginalised and walked all over - we want an offer for all or a significant % of our shares - our legacy!
There is no point in going after Jenkins, Dineen, Morgan and Co, as such, unless by doing so it helps the Trust secure its future to bank the money for that rainy day.
Currently we are being told we are very much a part of the Club and its decisions. We are hearing of bridges being built. But we all know and should NEVER forget what lengths both selling and buying parties went to to secure the immediate future running of OUR Football Club.
It's all well and good thinking it's rosy for the time being, maybe purely because we all like Clement and we think he can save our Premier League status, but when it all comes down to it, with the control the Americans have over SCFC right now, they can say and do what they like and the Trust won't even come into their thoughts.
We have to act - and not solely to stick it to the selling Charlatans - but for the future generations of the likes of you and me, boy and man supporters and everyone else who's ever loved the Swans.
The Trust need to lead, not follow, and if they can't, they need to step aside so others can.
[Post edited 28 Feb 2017 1:31]
* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM
I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 01:29 - Feb 28 by TheResurrection
Chris, this isn't about suing the old Directors.
This is about The Trust attempting to rewind the clock to just before the takeover was completed and retrospectively become a part of the deal "WE" were so underhandedly excluded from.
Through being unfairly prejudiced the Trust has been marginalised and walked all over - we want an offer for all or a significant % of our shares - our legacy!
There is no point in going after Jenkins, Dineen, Morgan and Co, as such, unless by doing so it helps the Trust secure its future to bank the money for that rainy day.
Currently we are being told we are very much a part of the Club and its decisions. We are hearing of bridges being built. But we all know and should NEVER forget what lengths both selling and buying parties went to to secure the immediate future running of OUR Football Club.
It's all well and good thinking it's rosy for the time being, maybe purely because we all like Clement and we think he can save our Premier League status, but when it all comes down to it, with the control the Americans have over SCFC right now, they can say and do what they like and the Trust won't even come into their thoughts.
We have to act - and not solely to stick it to the selling Charlatans - but for the future generations of the likes of you and me, boy and man supporters and everyone else who's ever loved the Swans.
The Trust need to lead, not follow, and if they can't, they need to step aside so others can.
[Post edited 28 Feb 2017 1:31]
Chris
I hear what you are saying but exactly what do you expect the Trust to do? What would you do.......as you say the control of our club is now in the hands of others. At least for the moment the Trust as representatives of the fans are at the table. And when I say fans at the moment the memebrship accounts for about 10% of our fan base, so maybe we need to get more joined up this would show the Yanks the solidarity in the ranks? But again what is it you propose the Trust needs to do? If we sell the shares where does that leave us? Money in the bank but no "holding" in the club.....and there is no saying a future rescue opportunity will present itself. The Yanks are shrewd businessmen they will now do all they can to protect their "investment" whihc means keeping us in the PL. When they decide to cash in the new buyers will too look for a return whihc is based on us being in the PL.
I think all we are looking for as fans is a strong Trust with teeth that can act decisively and quickly if need be. It should be respected because it is powerful as a legal entity that can sting if it is done wrong.
Why the sell outs and new owners would conspire to sell the club between them without even consulting the Trust,a large stakeholder, just ignoring it,is not right.
We are talking of the biggest decision regarding the future of SCFC here.
If they get away with something major like that then it will happen again in future if the Trust is seen as weak and indecisive.
There are good people at the top...I have every confidence in them to lead us forward.
But a contingency plan should have already have been in place to be acted on quickly if an event such as this ever occurred.
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 01:29 - Feb 28 by TheResurrection
Chris, this isn't about suing the old Directors.
This is about The Trust attempting to rewind the clock to just before the takeover was completed and retrospectively become a part of the deal "WE" were so underhandedly excluded from.
Through being unfairly prejudiced the Trust has been marginalised and walked all over - we want an offer for all or a significant % of our shares - our legacy!
There is no point in going after Jenkins, Dineen, Morgan and Co, as such, unless by doing so it helps the Trust secure its future to bank the money for that rainy day.
Currently we are being told we are very much a part of the Club and its decisions. We are hearing of bridges being built. But we all know and should NEVER forget what lengths both selling and buying parties went to to secure the immediate future running of OUR Football Club.
It's all well and good thinking it's rosy for the time being, maybe purely because we all like Clement and we think he can save our Premier League status, but when it all comes down to it, with the control the Americans have over SCFC right now, they can say and do what they like and the Trust won't even come into their thoughts.
We have to act - and not solely to stick it to the selling Charlatans - but for the future generations of the likes of you and me, boy and man supporters and everyone else who's ever loved the Swans.
The Trust need to lead, not follow, and if they can't, they need to step aside so others can.
[Post edited 28 Feb 2017 1:31]
So if they step aside who's going to step in?
Non-members like you and Shaky is it? lol
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
This interesting thread needs to be developed slightly further.Let us look first of all at a scenario where no action is taken. The bridges that have been built ,which basically involve a select three from the Trust having selective access to the day to day running of the club would exist only as long as the American investors want it to exist. It is doubtful whether this involvement does and would involve the Trust as fellow investors, but more as a supporters group. This places the position of the Trust's shares in no different scenario as to what they were before the bridges were built.In other words,as has been previously stated, they are virtually worthless.They do not guarantee dividends,they do not guarantee a place on the Board of the Companies that matter (Oth 2015 Ltd and Swansea Football LLC.) they can be watered down at the discretion of the majority investors, and they can be completely bypassed in a future sale simply through new owners achieving their aims of ownership by buying the shares of the American investors company, Swansea Footall LLC. Therefore the Trust would basically become a supporters group with £800,000approx in the bank. This position should not however mean the end of the Trust as an important part of the future of the football club.The money accumulated could be used to develop the size and representation of the Trust .There should be no need to charge £10 and £5 annual membership fees in order to retain or become members.Greater emphasis again could be given to publicity ,with regular pages in the football programme and regular contributions to the local press.The Trust could become the watchdog of what is happening behind the scenes.To make this work however they must not be docile (or always hostile ). It would mean a completely new approach from the Trust in which their usefulness and importance to the owners must be carefully balanced with their acknowledgement that they are first and foremost the fans representatives. The alternate scenario is to sue .From what I understand (and I am sure there are many who would tell me if I am wrong), it would be the club that is sued,not the previous shareholders or the American investors. If successful the club would have to purchase the Trusts shares at a similar price to what the other shares were sold for.This could result in the Trust having no shares but £23m + in the bank.. The big question then is...what could the Trust do with this money. Well here are a few suggestions. Lend the money back to the Company (suitably safely secured) .This would give a position of power to the Trust as a major creditor, and also support the Club at the same time. Use it to purchase the Liberty lease.In Phil Sumblers book 'the official history of Swansea City Supporters Trust, mention is made on page 19 of Northampton Town .They had access through legal conditions on the lease on their new ground which gave them full board representation.Phil described it as fan power at its best. I have mentioned for a long time that I am worried about the present lease being given up for a new lease . I will reiterate that the present lease granted for 50 years to Swansea Stadium Management Company is a fine lease It guarantees that all money made is spent on the Stadium.No profits are taken out for the payment of dividends or directors fees.It has provision to apply funds for future maintenance and improvements.The present lease is more likely to guarantee league football in Swansea ,which after all is the main aim of the Trust , than any holding of shares in the football club. The fact that that lease could now be destroyed and replaced by a new lease granted to the football club.(which basically is the same as giving it to the American investors ) frightens me.The fact that our representatives discussing the cessation of the Stadium Management company are Jenkins, Dineen and Pearlman frightens me.The fact that at the moment the members of the Trust see it as a good idea , frightens me. I am therefore of the opinion that the Trust should take legal action, and I hope that this legal action will be determined before the lease of the Liberty is lost to the Americans.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 10:02 - Feb 28 by NOTRAC
This interesting thread needs to be developed slightly further.Let us look first of all at a scenario where no action is taken. The bridges that have been built ,which basically involve a select three from the Trust having selective access to the day to day running of the club would exist only as long as the American investors want it to exist. It is doubtful whether this involvement does and would involve the Trust as fellow investors, but more as a supporters group. This places the position of the Trust's shares in no different scenario as to what they were before the bridges were built.In other words,as has been previously stated, they are virtually worthless.They do not guarantee dividends,they do not guarantee a place on the Board of the Companies that matter (Oth 2015 Ltd and Swansea Football LLC.) they can be watered down at the discretion of the majority investors, and they can be completely bypassed in a future sale simply through new owners achieving their aims of ownership by buying the shares of the American investors company, Swansea Footall LLC. Therefore the Trust would basically become a supporters group with £800,000approx in the bank. This position should not however mean the end of the Trust as an important part of the future of the football club.The money accumulated could be used to develop the size and representation of the Trust .There should be no need to charge £10 and £5 annual membership fees in order to retain or become members.Greater emphasis again could be given to publicity ,with regular pages in the football programme and regular contributions to the local press.The Trust could become the watchdog of what is happening behind the scenes.To make this work however they must not be docile (or always hostile ). It would mean a completely new approach from the Trust in which their usefulness and importance to the owners must be carefully balanced with their acknowledgement that they are first and foremost the fans representatives. The alternate scenario is to sue .From what I understand (and I am sure there are many who would tell me if I am wrong), it would be the club that is sued,not the previous shareholders or the American investors. If successful the club would have to purchase the Trusts shares at a similar price to what the other shares were sold for.This could result in the Trust having no shares but £23m + in the bank.. The big question then is...what could the Trust do with this money. Well here are a few suggestions. Lend the money back to the Company (suitably safely secured) .This would give a position of power to the Trust as a major creditor, and also support the Club at the same time. Use it to purchase the Liberty lease.In Phil Sumblers book 'the official history of Swansea City Supporters Trust, mention is made on page 19 of Northampton Town .They had access through legal conditions on the lease on their new ground which gave them full board representation.Phil described it as fan power at its best. I have mentioned for a long time that I am worried about the present lease being given up for a new lease . I will reiterate that the present lease granted for 50 years to Swansea Stadium Management Company is a fine lease It guarantees that all money made is spent on the Stadium.No profits are taken out for the payment of dividends or directors fees.It has provision to apply funds for future maintenance and improvements.The present lease is more likely to guarantee league football in Swansea ,which after all is the main aim of the Trust , than any holding of shares in the football club. The fact that that lease could now be destroyed and replaced by a new lease granted to the football club.(which basically is the same as giving it to the American investors ) frightens me.The fact that our representatives discussing the cessation of the Stadium Management company are Jenkins, Dineen and Pearlman frightens me.The fact that at the moment the members of the Trust see it as a good idea , frightens me. I am therefore of the opinion that the Trust should take legal action, and I hope that this legal action will be determined before the lease of the Liberty is lost to the Americans.
NOTRAC are you a Trust member?
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 10:02 - Feb 28 by NOTRAC
This interesting thread needs to be developed slightly further.Let us look first of all at a scenario where no action is taken. The bridges that have been built ,which basically involve a select three from the Trust having selective access to the day to day running of the club would exist only as long as the American investors want it to exist. It is doubtful whether this involvement does and would involve the Trust as fellow investors, but more as a supporters group. This places the position of the Trust's shares in no different scenario as to what they were before the bridges were built.In other words,as has been previously stated, they are virtually worthless.They do not guarantee dividends,they do not guarantee a place on the Board of the Companies that matter (Oth 2015 Ltd and Swansea Football LLC.) they can be watered down at the discretion of the majority investors, and they can be completely bypassed in a future sale simply through new owners achieving their aims of ownership by buying the shares of the American investors company, Swansea Footall LLC. Therefore the Trust would basically become a supporters group with £800,000approx in the bank. This position should not however mean the end of the Trust as an important part of the future of the football club.The money accumulated could be used to develop the size and representation of the Trust .There should be no need to charge £10 and £5 annual membership fees in order to retain or become members.Greater emphasis again could be given to publicity ,with regular pages in the football programme and regular contributions to the local press.The Trust could become the watchdog of what is happening behind the scenes.To make this work however they must not be docile (or always hostile ). It would mean a completely new approach from the Trust in which their usefulness and importance to the owners must be carefully balanced with their acknowledgement that they are first and foremost the fans representatives. The alternate scenario is to sue .From what I understand (and I am sure there are many who would tell me if I am wrong), it would be the club that is sued,not the previous shareholders or the American investors. If successful the club would have to purchase the Trusts shares at a similar price to what the other shares were sold for.This could result in the Trust having no shares but £23m + in the bank.. The big question then is...what could the Trust do with this money. Well here are a few suggestions. Lend the money back to the Company (suitably safely secured) .This would give a position of power to the Trust as a major creditor, and also support the Club at the same time. Use it to purchase the Liberty lease.In Phil Sumblers book 'the official history of Swansea City Supporters Trust, mention is made on page 19 of Northampton Town .They had access through legal conditions on the lease on their new ground which gave them full board representation.Phil described it as fan power at its best. I have mentioned for a long time that I am worried about the present lease being given up for a new lease . I will reiterate that the present lease granted for 50 years to Swansea Stadium Management Company is a fine lease It guarantees that all money made is spent on the Stadium.No profits are taken out for the payment of dividends or directors fees.It has provision to apply funds for future maintenance and improvements.The present lease is more likely to guarantee league football in Swansea ,which after all is the main aim of the Trust , than any holding of shares in the football club. The fact that that lease could now be destroyed and replaced by a new lease granted to the football club.(which basically is the same as giving it to the American investors ) frightens me.The fact that our representatives discussing the cessation of the Stadium Management company are Jenkins, Dineen and Pearlman frightens me.The fact that at the moment the members of the Trust see it as a good idea , frightens me. I am therefore of the opinion that the Trust should take legal action, and I hope that this legal action will be determined before the lease of the Liberty is lost to the Americans.
Excellent post.
#backtojack
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 10:47 - Feb 28 with 888 views
I urge anyone that cares about the future of Swansea City and the Trust to ignore this idiot and anyone else that purposefully tries to derail this healthy debate.
Separate to the above nonsense...... Can anyone who has voted to build bridges explain their reasons for voting that way?
* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM
I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 10:47 - Feb 28 by Uxbridge
It might have been if he didn't keep on repeating the blatant lie that the Trust's 21% stake is worthless.
He is simply pointing out the glaringly obvious fact the Trust's shares are between a rock and a hard place and with more out manoeuvring by the canny Americans to the dithering Trust they very well could be.
* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM
I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 10:53 - Feb 28 by TheResurrection
Darran once more doing Phil Sumbler's dirty work.
I urge anyone that cares about the future of Swansea City and the Trust to ignore this idiot and anyone else that purposefully tries to derail this healthy debate.
Separate to the above nonsense...... Can anyone who has voted to build bridges explain their reasons for voting that way?
We are still waitning to hear what you would do Chris as I asked earlier in this thread
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 10:47 - Feb 28 by Uxbridge
It might have been if he didn't keep on repeating the blatant lie that the Trust's 21% stake is worthless.
Why would anyone:-
(1) conduct due diligence with associated costs;and (2) make an offer for the Trust's shares under the new articles
They are worthless unless Yank's allow the Trust to sell its stake - when the Yank's come to sell.
Finally why would the Yank's ever declare a dividend to make the Trust stronger - when they can take out their return through management fees and sale of shares. So Trust will not receive a return on their shares.
The shares are worthless - take legal action.
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 11:31 - Feb 28 with 845 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 10:53 - Feb 28 by TheResurrection
Darran once more doing Phil Sumbler's dirty work.
I urge anyone that cares about the future of Swansea City and the Trust to ignore this idiot and anyone else that purposefully tries to derail this healthy debate.
Separate to the above nonsense...... Can anyone who has voted to build bridges explain their reasons for voting that way?
Well I didn't vote, as I didn't think the question is flawed ... after past actions, nobody is going to blindly trust (small t) anyone. You can try to form a working relationship while still being well aware of what's happened in the past.
And therein lies the crux of it all. There are a number of questions to ask ourselves, given where we are:
1. In an absolutely ideal scenario, what do we want to happen. Do we want the Trust to be closely involved with the running of the football club, or not?
For me, the answer to that is Yes. It's why the Trust was set up in the first place after all. That need for a voice and presence in the running of the club hasn't gone. It is probably more important now than it's been in almost 15 years.
2. Given that the buyers are stating they want to work with the Trust as partners, what would it take for the Trust to sign up to that?
Well, there's been progress. Stu Mac has been appointed as SD (and I think he's an excellent appointment BTW, absolutely the best man for the job) to the football club board. The gap in terms of the 2002 board representation has now been agreed and addressed. I'd like a second presence on the club board, and while Will will be observing, I'd like that firmed up asap. There are also formal weekly and monthly meetings, and constant dialogue as and when things crop up. This is all excellent stuff IMO.
However, does it address the fundamental issues such as protecting the Trust's stake and influence? On the former, there's certainly a gap there. The Trust can't stop a share issue and without some major fundraising woudl struggle to maintain its stake. However, what we need to remember about any share issue is that shares need to be issued at fair value .... and given the recent £110m valuation of the club, that's £110 a share or near as. Just my personal view, but I'm not against an injection of equity, so long as it's in the club's interests. However, I think formalising the Trust's position in terms of its shareholding, influence, ability to protect the club etc is something that is lacking to date.
3. Should the Trust seek to sell all, or part, of its stake?
That all rather depends on 2 IMO. WIthout influence, there's no point the Trust being around. However, I would argue the Trust has influence now. Some may not think so, but there we are, I disagree. As has been noted, the Americans won't discuss an offer for the Trust's stake until our league position is more settled, which I can understand if not particularly like. So, one question may be, would the Trust be able to maintain it's current levels of engagement if it sold its stake? Unlikely I would wager. Why would the Americans listen? They may have majority control now, but the Trust does have a significant stake, it can't simply be ignored. A part sale? Maybe, however we know from Americans v1.0 that legal guidance is that legally you're stronger the larger stake you have. Plus I really couldn't see us getting a bigger presence at board level if we did that. Maybe that's worth it. I don't know.
4. If those discussions go nowhere, should the Trust go down legal channels?
For me, entirely depends on the strength of the case. If the legal guidance is that we can win, and the members want it, then it will happen. However we need to be conscious that it would come with consequences - relationships will break down, probably terminally, and it will be a very expensive business. That 800k will be significantly dented, it may even be almost swallowed up. Shaky's right when he says 5k doesn't buy much of a top QC's time. 160 days at that rate and the fund is gone.
5. Should the Trust just go to court anyway, given that legal guidance already suggests breaches of contract and possible criminal acts.
As times, when I'm most piissed off, I'd agree. However, this can't be entirely emotionally based, it has to be what's best for the Trust, the members, the fans ... and by proxy of all three, the club to a degree. I'd love to see certain people in the dock, but I'm not sure that's how that would even work. Plus, for those thinking this would result in certain people leaving the club, there's no guarantee of that at all.
It's a complex issue. From my non legal mind, and going back to my old Finance textbooks, what Shaky says regarding shareholder value being impacted makes total sense. Question is whether a) it makes legal sense or b) it's an argument that could stand up in court are other things entirely. When we have that definitive legal guidance I'll be going along with that. However, let's not kid ourselves that legal action wouldn't have a significant detrimental effect on the club ... it would, and it's why it must be the last resort. So, to answer your question, I suspect that's why the majority (in this admittedly very small poll) have said they're rather try and get things to work through dialogue rather than go to court.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 10:02 - Feb 28 by NOTRAC
This interesting thread needs to be developed slightly further.Let us look first of all at a scenario where no action is taken. The bridges that have been built ,which basically involve a select three from the Trust having selective access to the day to day running of the club would exist only as long as the American investors want it to exist. It is doubtful whether this involvement does and would involve the Trust as fellow investors, but more as a supporters group. This places the position of the Trust's shares in no different scenario as to what they were before the bridges were built.In other words,as has been previously stated, they are virtually worthless.They do not guarantee dividends,they do not guarantee a place on the Board of the Companies that matter (Oth 2015 Ltd and Swansea Football LLC.) they can be watered down at the discretion of the majority investors, and they can be completely bypassed in a future sale simply through new owners achieving their aims of ownership by buying the shares of the American investors company, Swansea Footall LLC. Therefore the Trust would basically become a supporters group with £800,000approx in the bank. This position should not however mean the end of the Trust as an important part of the future of the football club.The money accumulated could be used to develop the size and representation of the Trust .There should be no need to charge £10 and £5 annual membership fees in order to retain or become members.Greater emphasis again could be given to publicity ,with regular pages in the football programme and regular contributions to the local press.The Trust could become the watchdog of what is happening behind the scenes.To make this work however they must not be docile (or always hostile ). It would mean a completely new approach from the Trust in which their usefulness and importance to the owners must be carefully balanced with their acknowledgement that they are first and foremost the fans representatives. The alternate scenario is to sue .From what I understand (and I am sure there are many who would tell me if I am wrong), it would be the club that is sued,not the previous shareholders or the American investors. If successful the club would have to purchase the Trusts shares at a similar price to what the other shares were sold for.This could result in the Trust having no shares but £23m + in the bank.. The big question then is...what could the Trust do with this money. Well here are a few suggestions. Lend the money back to the Company (suitably safely secured) .This would give a position of power to the Trust as a major creditor, and also support the Club at the same time. Use it to purchase the Liberty lease.In Phil Sumblers book 'the official history of Swansea City Supporters Trust, mention is made on page 19 of Northampton Town .They had access through legal conditions on the lease on their new ground which gave them full board representation.Phil described it as fan power at its best. I have mentioned for a long time that I am worried about the present lease being given up for a new lease . I will reiterate that the present lease granted for 50 years to Swansea Stadium Management Company is a fine lease It guarantees that all money made is spent on the Stadium.No profits are taken out for the payment of dividends or directors fees.It has provision to apply funds for future maintenance and improvements.The present lease is more likely to guarantee league football in Swansea ,which after all is the main aim of the Trust , than any holding of shares in the football club. The fact that that lease could now be destroyed and replaced by a new lease granted to the football club.(which basically is the same as giving it to the American investors ) frightens me.The fact that our representatives discussing the cessation of the Stadium Management company are Jenkins, Dineen and Pearlman frightens me.The fact that at the moment the members of the Trust see it as a good idea , frightens me. I am therefore of the opinion that the Trust should take legal action, and I hope that this legal action will be determined before the lease of the Liberty is lost to the Americans.
I would have no problem of the Trust giving a loan to the club - providing it ranks ahead of all the other creditors - in the creditors waterfall.
The Trust could then impose conditions on club not to take on excessive debt through debt covenants.
If club ever defaulted - Trust would take control of the club through a debt for equity swap.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
