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
With respect ,Chris, you re misunderstanding my concerns
There is no panacea in all this, just opinion and argument
THAT is my point
THAT is my concern, I e , the bitterness leads to Destableising matters on the field of play.
Fans do NOT have either to own or to even have a say in the running of a club mainly because all of us have different views, so which fans should hold sway.
However, the ownership of our club has to be professional and competent able to move us upwards.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 19:11 - Feb 23 by TheResurrection
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!!
Well to be fair the opportunity is there for anyone to turn up and ask any question they like.
Wouldn't you agree?
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 19:51 - Feb 23 with 877 views
Bottom line. I think all we want as fans is the Trust to be strong and in a good position to defend the interests of scfc in times of trouble.
Recently, we have been disapointed because they were ignored and totally left out of any real negotiations in a very important chapter in the future of the club.
This was done illegally and should never have been allowed to happen the way it did without consequences. What was done about it? not a lot really....which worries us if the Trust can be ignored again in future when it comes to major decisions...
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 19:11 - Feb 23 by TheResurrection
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!!
I called him a pitiful twát because I was there on the night and he was extremely pitiful and he looked like a teát.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
When I spoke to Phil after the meeting I also mentioned that the Trust has no choice but to build a relationship with the Americans, but not they must not be naive. After all, Jenkins was making the right noises about protecting the Trust when they were in discussions with Moores and Noell, and look at what has happened with a different buyer. Phil assured me that wouldn't happen. To be honest it remains to be seen. The Trust needs to carefully plan it's future and not stand still.
#backtojack
0
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 23:52 - Feb 23 with 1577 views
Well this is certainly an interesting thread. Not due to the split of the votes - Psycoboy could and probably has already been manipulating that freely - but rather as an indication of the sad, sad capitulaiton of Swansea supporters.
On this critical issue for the future of the club, only 69 people could be bothered to register an interest, and that includes some share of the Psycoboy block vote!
Nobody should be in any doubt that this is a reflection of the fact that the 5 stages of grief have now been completed, leaving supporters in a state of acceptance that not a fcuking thing is going to be done.
Mission accomplished, Trust board, who now appear to have quietly steered a course toward a policy of rapprochement, founded on hot air only; certainly there is no sign whatsoever of any contractual guarantees underpinning this, now or binding on any future owners.
However, I note the Trust has in to a certain extent accommodated my demand that they should publish legal fees incurred, even though they seemingly fail to offer full disclosure by playing semantic games that exclude legal billings prior to discussions with the Levin and Kaplan having commenced.
Furthermore I am unfortunately left with the impression that games are still being played; £5,000:- is not not going to buy more than a couple of days of QC's time so why no news on legal action.
Nevertheless, here in summary is the Unfair Prejudice case as I see it is:
Fraud on the Minority: Selling shareholders have captured the control premium and excluded the Trust from participating in it. In Finance it is the same as a scientific fact documented in numerous academic studies that control premiums exist, amounting typically to anything from perhaps 15%-40%. Further it should be easy to find any number of independent academic experts who can testify that the unique nature of football clubs typically making them cash-flow negative, means the premium would be at the high end. However, even at the low/mid range it is material.
Elevated duty of care by directors: See Sharp v Blank. A "Special Relationship" clearly existed, ask any random sample of 500 Supporters. Further numerous statements and PR puff pieces from the selling shareholders document the collegiate nature of the ownership of the club. Further trust placed in co-shareholders/CEO/Chairman implied by refraining from enjoying bard representation on holding company board.
Also subsidiary argument is that the Club qualifies as a closed company under UK Tax law. Could refer to commonwealth cases where Closed company status automatically places elevated duty of care on board. Eg see appeal Court ruling in Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co
Obstacles: I have already described the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle on Jackarmy message boards, but in case of any doubt the case I was referring to was Peskin v Anderson and the ruling of Lord Justice Mummery.
Other: Regardless of the situation of Swansea specifically, I actually think it is critical for this case to be litigated. European law demands that shareholders be treated equally in takeovers, but have held that this only applies in scope to stock exchange listed companies, and that it is up to individual countries to rule on its applicability in private companies. Reasonable fairness - and perhaps legal equity - demands that, and this case could be an ideal way to get an urgently needed initial ruling. As such if you were imaginative you might find quality representation ready to take this on a pro bono basis due to the much wider issues involved.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 07:40 - Feb 24 by Shaky
Well this is certainly an interesting thread. Not due to the split of the votes - Psycoboy could and probably has already been manipulating that freely - but rather as an indication of the sad, sad capitulaiton of Swansea supporters.
On this critical issue for the future of the club, only 69 people could be bothered to register an interest, and that includes some share of the Psycoboy block vote!
Nobody should be in any doubt that this is a reflection of the fact that the 5 stages of grief have now been completed, leaving supporters in a state of acceptance that not a fcuking thing is going to be done.
Mission accomplished, Trust board, who now appear to have quietly steered a course toward a policy of rapprochement, founded on hot air only; certainly there is no sign whatsoever of any contractual guarantees underpinning this, now or binding on any future owners.
However, I note the Trust has in to a certain extent accommodated my demand that they should publish legal fees incurred, even though they seemingly fail to offer full disclosure by playing semantic games that exclude legal billings prior to discussions with the Levin and Kaplan having commenced.
Furthermore I am unfortunately left with the impression that games are still being played; £5,000:- is not not going to buy more than a couple of days of QC's time so why no news on legal action.
Nevertheless, here in summary is the Unfair Prejudice case as I see it is:
Fraud on the Minority: Selling shareholders have captured the control premium and excluded the Trust from participating in it. In Finance it is the same as a scientific fact documented in numerous academic studies that control premiums exist, amounting typically to anything from perhaps 15%-40%. Further it should be easy to find any number of independent academic experts who can testify that the unique nature of football clubs typically making them cash-flow negative, means the premium would be at the high end. However, even at the low/mid range it is material.
Elevated duty of care by directors: See Sharp v Blank. A "Special Relationship" clearly existed, ask any random sample of 500 Supporters. Further numerous statements and PR puff pieces from the selling shareholders document the collegiate nature of the ownership of the club. Further trust placed in co-shareholders/CEO/Chairman implied by refraining from enjoying bard representation on holding company board.
Also subsidiary argument is that the Club qualifies as a closed company under UK Tax law. Could refer to commonwealth cases where Closed company status automatically places elevated duty of care on board. Eg see appeal Court ruling in Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co
Obstacles: I have already described the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle on Jackarmy message boards, but in case of any doubt the case I was referring to was Peskin v Anderson and the ruling of Lord Justice Mummery.
Other: Regardless of the situation of Swansea specifically, I actually think it is critical for this case to be litigated. European law demands that shareholders be treated equally in takeovers, but have held that this only applies in scope to stock exchange listed companies, and that it is up to individual countries to rule on its applicability in private companies. Reasonable fairness - and perhaps legal equity - demands that, and this case could be an ideal way to get an urgently needed initial ruling. As such if you were imaginative you might find quality representation ready to take this on a pro bono basis due to the much wider issues involved.
Phil Sumbler, Andrew Godden, Matt G....
Can you respond in as much detail as possible to Shaky's post please.
Let's get the cards on the table as this has been strung out beyond belief.
Let's see the invoices, the notes from the legal people and exactly where we are with it all.
Shaky,
I couldn't agree more with the paltry amount of posters who voted.
This is another major failing of the Trust, but perhaps one of design rather than of culpability
There's big worrying part of me that thinks they are happy with this drifting off to the back of everyone's minds and manipulating the minds with sound bites to the tune of building bridges.
What the hell has been going on for 8 months??.
* 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 16:18 - Feb 24 by TheResurrection
Phil Sumbler, Andrew Godden, Matt G....
Can you respond in as much detail as possible to Shaky's post please.
Let's get the cards on the table as this has been strung out beyond belief.
Let's see the invoices, the notes from the legal people and exactly where we are with it all.
Shaky,
I couldn't agree more with the paltry amount of posters who voted.
This is another major failing of the Trust, but perhaps one of design rather than of culpability
There's big worrying part of me that thinks they are happy with this drifting off to the back of everyone's minds and manipulating the minds with sound bites to the tune of building bridges.
What the hell has been going on for 8 months??.
So it's a major issue because people haven't been voting in a Planetswans poll?
Fuçking hell.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action on 16:31 - Feb 24 by Darran
And another thing too haven't you got anything to say about Shakys vile name calling? lol
Nobody wants you on this thread. You offer it absolutely nothing. Your opinion is worthless. I won't reply to you again and just hope you'll let people who matter debate it like adults.
* 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 16:37 - Feb 24 by TheResurrection
Nobody wants you on this thread. You offer it absolutely nothing. Your opinion is worthless. I won't reply to you again and just hope you'll let people who matter debate it like adults.
It isn't very adult to be calling someone Psycoboy surely?
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
