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 21:41 - Feb 22 by NeathJack
There's a hell of a lot of think, might and maybes there.
None of that is going to happen. Not ever. Or at least not until there is a clear and provable fraud on the minority with a demonstrable consequential quantifiable loss. Should know better than to say not ever.
Ps my stance is if there's say a 65/35,chance of legal success in terms of the damages around the s/h agreement shenanigans, which is presumably the core point of law under opinion, then I think the Trust should bite the bullet definitely.
Certainly being to all intents and purposes a pet poodle to be patted and thrown a biscuit here and there would stick seriously in the gullet. At the moment hand on heart that's what I see as the most likely outcome.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 21:43 - Feb 22 by monmouth
None of that is going to happen. Not ever. Or at least not until there is a clear and provable fraud on the minority with a demonstrable consequential quantifiable loss. Should know better than to say not ever.
Ps my stance is if there's say a 65/35,chance of legal success in terms of the damages around the s/h agreement shenanigans, which is presumably the core point of law under opinion, then I think the Trust should bite the bullet definitely.
Certainly being to all intents and purposes a pet poodle to be patted and thrown a biscuit here and there would stick seriously in the gullet. At the moment hand on heart that's what I see as the most likely outcome.
[Post edited 22 Feb 2017 21:53]
If another consortium/investor approached the Trust to buy its 21% stake - what would happen next under the New Articles?
The Trust would have to negotiate with the Yanks (the Majority Shareholder) as they have under the new articles:-
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/MHogB2AawWIwdRf (i) a right of first negotiation ( Article 13.2 1. and 13.2.2) and the Trust must sell to them if their offer is higher than new consortium/investor (articles 13.2.3.) (ii) a right to approve the new consortium as reasonably acceptable to them (Article 13.2.3.)
Why would a new consortium/investor conduct due diligence with associated costs - with these conditions?
Why would they also buy the shares if they would then be under the same conditions, under the New Articles as the Trust?
Does this mean that there are likely to be fewer potential buyers out there - reducing the liquidity and value of Trust's shares?
The Trust does not have reciprocal rights over the Yanks.
So when will the Trust ever sell its shares? Maybe on a sale by the Yanks - however what happens if the Yanks just decide to sell their 68% on a future sale - without involving the Trust? How does the Trust now have a potential exit? If it doesn't have a potential exit what are they now worth? The discounted cashflow of future dividends? However the Yanks have the voting rights to declare a dividend or not?
if Trust doesn't have a potential exit doesn't this demonstrate consequential quantifiable loss?
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 22:39 - Feb 22 with 1505 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 22:33 - Feb 22 by Nookiejack
If another consortium/investor approached the Trust to buy its 21% stake - what would happen next under the New Articles?
The Trust would have to negotiate with the Yanks (the Majority Shareholder) as they have under the new articles:-
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/MHogB2AawWIwdRf (i) a right of first negotiation ( Article 13.2 1. and 13.2.2) and the Trust must sell to them if their offer is higher than new consortium/investor (articles 13.2.3.) (ii) a right to approve the new consortium as reasonably acceptable to them (Article 13.2.3.)
Why would a new consortium/investor conduct due diligence with associated costs - with these conditions?
Why would they also buy the shares if they would then be under the same conditions, under the New Articles as the Trust?
Does this mean that there are likely to be fewer potential buyers out there - reducing the liquidity and value of Trust's shares?
The Trust does not have reciprocal rights over the Yanks.
So when will the Trust ever sell its shares? Maybe on a sale by the Yanks - however what happens if the Yanks just decide to sell their 68% on a future sale - without involving the Trust? How does the Trust now have a potential exit? If it doesn't have a potential exit what are they now worth? The discounted cashflow of future dividends? However the Yanks have the voting rights to declare a dividend or not?
if Trust doesn't have a potential exit doesn't this demonstrate consequential quantifiable loss?
PS If the Trust doesn't take legal action isn't it totally locked in under the New Articles? (Hopefully I am wrong)
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 22:43 - Feb 22 with 1496 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 22:43 - Feb 22 by Loyal
Tonight that question would have been of value, instead another tw@t wanted to talk about the pie eating far cnt from Monday night.
Here's another a few?
With the Yanks in a majority voting position - when do you next expect the next dividend to be declared? How much do you expect it be to increase the current £900k bank balance?
Over the next few years what do you expect to be the relationship between 'Stan Kronke' type Management Fees and Dividends declared? Could you plot it on a graph?
The point being the Trust potentially now will never receive a return on its £21m stake - given the Yanks can achieve their return through Management Fees and sale of their shares.
The Trust potentially achieves zero return on its £21m - as is locked/ can't sell its shares and receives no dividends - if none are declared.
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 23:13 - Feb 22 with 1457 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 23:13 - Feb 22 by Landore_Jack
The impression I have from the Trust is that they will always adhere to the old articles because they are valid.
[Post edited 22 Feb 2017 23:16]
I think this position still reduces the liquidity of the shares - as potential buyers of the Trust's shares - know that if the Trust doesnot comply with the New Articles - the Yanks would launch legal action.
That would at least reduce the pool of potential buyers and resultant value of the Trust's shares - knowing if they bought the shares - legal action would be taken against them and the Trust (as sellers).
The new articles have been lodged at Companies House for all to see - so if legal action is not taken - I don't follow how Trust could then argue they were adhering to the old articles and not the new ones?
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 03:29 - Feb 23 with 1404 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 11:57 - Feb 22 by Nookiejack
Unfortunately I really don't think majority on the Trust board want to sell the stake. Hence why they will find an excuse not to proceed with the legal action.
They understand that if they win one of the Remedies could be for their shares to be bought out on same terms as selling shareholders. However they don't really want to sell.
They have an opportunity to launch legal action, bank the £20m when they win, with then a chance of eventual control of club by fans.
I think they are going to throw the opportunity away.
the prospect of the trust having a controlling stake in our club at some point brings me out in a cold sweat. Based on the last few years, the setup it totally ill equipped for such a task.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 23:05 - Feb 22 by Nookiejack
Here's another a few?
With the Yanks in a majority voting position - when do you next expect the next dividend to be declared? How much do you expect it be to increase the current £900k bank balance?
Over the next few years what do you expect to be the relationship between 'Stan Kronke' type Management Fees and Dividends declared? Could you plot it on a graph?
The point being the Trust potentially now will never receive a return on its £21m stake - given the Yanks can achieve their return through Management Fees and sale of their shares.
The Trust potentially achieves zero return on its £21m - as is locked/ can't sell its shares and receives no dividends - if none are declared.
Indeed. Trussed up like an oven ready chicken. But it is all about where that predjudice line is. Even if the current change of articles were deemed illegal, in form, nothing to stop them all giving the required notice and repeating it legally. I'm not surprised the legal action position is so unclear. Plus 900k isn't a lot in legal fee terms....they simply might not have the funds for the case when you consider what would be set against them.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 23:28 - Feb 22 by Nookiejack
I think this position still reduces the liquidity of the shares - as potential buyers of the Trust's shares - know that if the Trust doesnot comply with the New Articles - the Yanks would launch legal action.
That would at least reduce the pool of potential buyers and resultant value of the Trust's shares - knowing if they bought the shares - legal action would be taken against them and the Trust (as sellers).
The new articles have been lodged at Companies House for all to see - so if legal action is not taken - I don't follow how Trust could then argue they were adhering to the old articles and not the new ones?
DO you therefore intend to join the Trust and stand for election to drive this battle?
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 08:53 - Feb 23 by perchrockjack
For the none accountants amongst us, someone explain just exactly HOW the club is in danger, putting aside sell outs , trust, ownership, shares.
Ordinary fan is that as bothered about WHO owns the club so long as its run properly and builds the business.
This is the only thing concerning me apart from Clement coming across this maelstrom of squabbling and walking away
Why would you want to risk future ownership akin to Blackburn's or Portsmouth's, Birmingham or Villa?
Wouldn't it be so much better if it were you or I, Lord Bony or Monmouth to name but a tiny select few. The fans at large could never be in a position to profit from the running of the Club then but simply to maximise its capability.
I do share Eastern Jack's worries though as the Trust have shown very little in terms of authority or forward thinking, decisiveness or transparency.
But the Club would be safer in the control of the fans and this legal action, something that was looked at months ago could help this along.
What is the latest QC's opinion. They were consulted months ago. Why haven't we had an update?
And on a side note the only way Clement is going to walk away is that he's done that good he'll be poached by another club. He won't care whether the Trust take court action or not as long as it doesn't affect his day to day managing of the football team.
They can't just treat us like they have. We can't just allow them to.
* 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 11:03 - Feb 23 by TheResurrection
Why would you want to risk future ownership akin to Blackburn's or Portsmouth's, Birmingham or Villa?
Wouldn't it be so much better if it were you or I, Lord Bony or Monmouth to name but a tiny select few. The fans at large could never be in a position to profit from the running of the Club then but simply to maximise its capability.
I do share Eastern Jack's worries though as the Trust have shown very little in terms of authority or forward thinking, decisiveness or transparency.
But the Club would be safer in the control of the fans and this legal action, something that was looked at months ago could help this along.
What is the latest QC's opinion. They were consulted months ago. Why haven't we had an update?
And on a side note the only way Clement is going to walk away is that he's done that good he'll be poached by another club. He won't care whether the Trust take court action or not as long as it doesn't affect his day to day managing of the football team.
They can't just treat us like they have. We can't just allow them to.
I agree with the sentiment. Unfortuneatly we have been sold out by so called "fans" of the club and in a way that they knew was a contradiciton of the so called philosphy behind them rescuing the club from Petty. that time do the wider fanbase made their feelings known to him and helped "run him out of town". This time round things are all to different. I am totally pi**ed off with the sell outs because as we know they have put our club in a vulnerable postion to be hawked around putting our future in jeopardy to follow the likes as youy have quoted.BUT for the interestsof the club what good will a legal battle do? What would be the outcome? What outcome do you want? I am not defendiing the Trust here my concern is the club. The time for the battle surely should have been at the time of the deal? Also who was the architect of the new articles of association was it the sellouts as they saw that without it they could not attract a buyer,or the Yanks as they wouldnot consider a sale under the original articles? so we go to court and win what does that mean? What stops the Yanks then selling out to someone worse.
As I asked what outocome are we looking for? Yes I would love it if we as fans owned the club.....we sort of did until the sell out, well those who were Trust memebrs did.
I wonder now does the Trust have a place? But as I say what is everyones expectation from a legal battle?
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 13:05 - Feb 23 by vetchonian
I agree with the sentiment. Unfortuneatly we have been sold out by so called "fans" of the club and in a way that they knew was a contradiciton of the so called philosphy behind them rescuing the club from Petty. that time do the wider fanbase made their feelings known to him and helped "run him out of town". This time round things are all to different. I am totally pi**ed off with the sell outs because as we know they have put our club in a vulnerable postion to be hawked around putting our future in jeopardy to follow the likes as youy have quoted.BUT for the interestsof the club what good will a legal battle do? What would be the outcome? What outcome do you want? I am not defendiing the Trust here my concern is the club. The time for the battle surely should have been at the time of the deal? Also who was the architect of the new articles of association was it the sellouts as they saw that without it they could not attract a buyer,or the Yanks as they wouldnot consider a sale under the original articles? so we go to court and win what does that mean? What stops the Yanks then selling out to someone worse.
As I asked what outocome are we looking for? Yes I would love it if we as fans owned the club.....we sort of did until the sell out, well those who were Trust memebrs did.
I wonder now does the Trust have a place? But as I say what is everyones expectation from a legal battle?
Bank the money for inevitable rainy day.
Trust then takes control of club with £20m behind it. Likely to be in lower divisions when rainy day comes.
It is long term play. Fulham stayed up in PL for 10 years.
45 clubs or so have been in PL since its inception - which indicates promotion and relegation is extremely fluid. So rainy day will come.
Long term control v short term influence.
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 15:36 - Feb 23 with 1106 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 16:13 - Feb 23 by swancity
Stop being such a tit Prosser.
Either join in the discussion with some sensible comments or go and do something else with your time.
Look Loyal stated he couldn't make it because he was working in Bristol so I suggested he sends someone to ask a question for him like The Resurrection once did. What's wrong with that?
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
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?
#backtojack
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 17:16 - Feb 23 with 1040 views
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 13:05 - Feb 23 by vetchonian
I agree with the sentiment. Unfortuneatly we have been sold out by so called "fans" of the club and in a way that they knew was a contradiciton of the so called philosphy behind them rescuing the club from Petty. that time do the wider fanbase made their feelings known to him and helped "run him out of town". This time round things are all to different. I am totally pi**ed off with the sell outs because as we know they have put our club in a vulnerable postion to be hawked around putting our future in jeopardy to follow the likes as youy have quoted.BUT for the interestsof the club what good will a legal battle do? What would be the outcome? What outcome do you want? I am not defendiing the Trust here my concern is the club. The time for the battle surely should have been at the time of the deal? Also who was the architect of the new articles of association was it the sellouts as they saw that without it they could not attract a buyer,or the Yanks as they wouldnot consider a sale under the original articles? so we go to court and win what does that mean? What stops the Yanks then selling out to someone worse.
As I asked what outocome are we looking for? Yes I would love it if we as fans owned the club.....we sort of did until the sell out, well those who were Trust memebrs did.
I wonder now does the Trust have a place? But as I say what is everyones expectation from a legal battle?
There's nothing stopping the Americans selling on again right now and to anyone, certainly the Trust wouldn't be able to do a damn thing.
This is another example of the old agreement being trodden over and us believing we had a degree of protection in place only to be out manoeuvred and finding we've lost it.
Taking legal action first and foremost would be to argue these points, how unfairly we have been treated and hopefully to evidence we have been unfairly prejudiced.
But most importantly it would be to regain the protection we all thought we had and if that's in the form of a sale of shares then that would certainly do the trick.
What would I want personally? I'd be happy with a part sale and a retention of shares - much the same the old shareholders have had. In my opinion this would be the best of both worlds. We'd have the money in the bank for the inevitable rainy day and a place in the ownership and running of the Club.
* 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 14:09 - Feb 23 by Darran
You should do what The Res does and send some pitiful twát to ask the questions for you.
Is that Cattulus you're attacking?
And why are you now calling him a pitiful tw@t? He offered to take a number of questions to a Trust meeting.
You're a horrible bloke I know that. I can't be bothered with you.
But in addition to the theme of this argument, the Trust meetings are pathetic and mostly are attended by sycophants and fools, Landore Jack except. The people that go there are more interested in Leon's favourite music band than to ask any searching question.
The Trust should be presented with a series of proper questions on the night and made to answer them. Nothing good comes out of these meetings, just more questions and answers but they continue with the same format and pat themselves on the back when they're done.
Where did these meetings get us when the going was getting really tough? I'll answer that - Nowhere!!
* 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 17:16 - Feb 23 by perchrockjack
I cannot agree that joining the lower leagues again just for "fans" to control is something to desire.
What we need is for the Americans to do what they stated they would do
They haven't
Frankly, I'm not bothered about the trust having ultimate control.
Not all foreign owned clubs are Portsmouths ,Villas, or Blackburns
You're missing the point again!
Inevitable means it's likely to happen, even probably.
It doesn't mean any of us want it to, especially so we can then just own the Club as fans.
First and foremost we will all back whoever it is and support the Club as much as we can to stay in the Premier League - but there is no guarantees mate. None!!
It's better to be in a position where we can financially rescue the club one day should we ever need to, not hope whoever it is that's sold it has done the right thing by us.
* 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
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
