| Any news from Trust or developments ? 10:22 - Jun 6 with 12917 views | swancity |
Just looked on Trust website but nothing
|  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:37 - Jun 14 with 1280 views | Starsky |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 17:50 - Jun 14 by E20Jack |
The sellouts keeping residual stakes and hanging round the club like a bad smell are the very least of our problems, they are almost old news now. Non entities. I truly hope these discussions are focussed on the important things and not looking for revenge against the old board.
Far more pressing is the fact that The Americans essentially have 100% voting rights and all value has been transferred from the Trusts 21% shares into the Americans 68%. We have been the victim of American highwaymen riding on Welsh, Dutch and South African horses.
They have pretty much stolen The Trusts shares broadly speaking. [Post edited 14 Jun 2017 17:54]
|
With respect E20, the sellouts getting ousted is very important to me. |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:44 - Jun 14 with 1265 views | E20Jack |
Surely not more important than the future of the club though?
The old board should be a very distant second in people's minds while the Trust face the situation they do. |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:47 - Jun 14 with 1260 views | Starsky |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:44 - Jun 14 by E20Jack |
Surely not more important than the future of the club though?
The old board should be a very distant second in people's minds while the Trust face the situation they do. |
Put it this way... if the sellouts survive then we're a laughing stock after what they did to the club.
Is anyone happy with that as part of any agreement? I'm not | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:50 - Jun 14 with 1256 views | E20Jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:47 - Jun 14 by Starsky |
Put it this way... if the sellouts survive then we're a laughing stock after what they did to the club.
Is anyone happy with that as part of any agreement? I'm not |
If it protects the future of the club and the Trust then we can buy them a crown for all I care.
They are now an irrelevance to the main pressing issues facing our club and truly hope they are not in any way shape or form the focus of any discussions. That can come at a more appropriate time. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:59 - Jun 14 with 1249 views | tomdickharry |
Would it be correct to say that when the time arrives for members to vote there will be a recommendation from the Trust Board which pathway to follow. | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:04 - Jun 14 with 1243 views | Starsky |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:50 - Jun 14 by E20Jack |
If it protects the future of the club and the Trust then we can buy them a crown for all I care.
They are now an irrelevance to the main pressing issues facing our club and truly hope they are not in any way shape or form the focus of any discussions. That can come at a more appropriate time. |
The future of what club?
Swansea City FC owned by the fans?
That's already died. If what survives is a club I can't connect with then that's a problem for me. | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:14 - Jun 14 with 1231 views | Dewi1jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:04 - Jun 14 by Starsky |
The future of what club?
Swansea City FC owned by the fans?
That's already died. If what survives is a club I can't connect with then that's a problem for me. |
The b'stards who sold the club are the ones who've already made the club FUBAR from even the glorious day out to reach the top.
Not one of them should now be anywhere near the club.
Let alone have access to a wage or tickets
And if any action means the Trust can sell some or all of it's shares at the same price as the snide, sneaky c**ts and put the money aside for when things go titsup (hopefully they don't) then I'm all for it.
I can only see the possibility of legal action against the sellers and not the Merrycans (just to put a smile on your face Starsk) if they stick with their "We were kept in the dark. Have a nice day ye'all" bollox anyway.
Now that would really be good.
Leave the sellers skint and all their ill gotten gains going to the Trust with them having to buy shares the Yankees can get round with the new articles.
Justice! |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:19 - Jun 14 with 1228 views | 3swan |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 18:50 - Jun 14 by E20Jack |
If it protects the future of the club and the Trust then we can buy them a crown for all I care.
They are now an irrelevance to the main pressing issues facing our club and truly hope they are not in any way shape or form the focus of any discussions. That can come at a more appropriate time. |
Can't agree with them being an irrelevance when one is DoF and supposedly having the backing of the new owners.
How can a 21% owner of the club, have any trust ( I know) in dialogue with the owners when there will be input from someone who actively encouraged the ignoring of the Trust. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:22 - Jun 14 with 1225 views | E20Jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:04 - Jun 14 by Starsky |
The future of what club?
Swansea City FC owned by the fans?
That's already died. If what survives is a club I can't connect with then that's a problem for me. |
That is not dead though is it, The Trust own 21% still - however the articles have essentially reduced them on zero.
Getting the 21% to actually mean 21% and have the value and power of 21% is all that should be imperative in these discussions now. The sellouts are irrelevant in comparison.
This is the future of the club not a revenge mission or a pride saving exercise. If these articles are not changed or legal action doesn't bring it about - the Americans essentially take all the Trusts shares for free. That is the bottom line, nothing else matters at this moment. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:36 - Jun 14 with 1208 views | E20Jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:19 - Jun 14 by 3swan |
Can't agree with them being an irrelevance when one is DoF and supposedly having the backing of the new owners.
How can a 21% owner of the club, have any trust ( I know) in dialogue with the owners when there will be input from someone who actively encouraged the ignoring of the Trust. |
They are an irrelevance to the main pressing issue facing the Trust. Nothing else should matter right now.
I don't think people quite grasp the situation including those involved in the Trust which is a terrifying prospect.
Our shares are worthless and have zero protection for our club. Jenkins being DoF and JVZ getting a few tickets are mere crumbs in a whole fruit loaf of problems facing the Trust. The main bulk of which being £20m worth of shares have essentially disappeared over night with 90% of that £20m being transferred from The Trusts holding to the Americans holding.
We have been the victim of a corporate sting that has cost us all the best part of £20m quid. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:39 - Jun 14 with 1199 views | 3swan |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:36 - Jun 14 by E20Jack |
They are an irrelevance to the main pressing issue facing the Trust. Nothing else should matter right now.
I don't think people quite grasp the situation including those involved in the Trust which is a terrifying prospect.
Our shares are worthless and have zero protection for our club. Jenkins being DoF and JVZ getting a few tickets are mere crumbs in a whole fruit loaf of problems facing the Trust. The main bulk of which being £20m worth of shares have essentially disappeared over night with 90% of that £20m being transferred from The Trusts holding to the Americans holding.
We have been the victim of a corporate sting that has cost us all the best part of £20m quid. |
I do grasp the situation and have posted earlier in this thread and in the past.
I agree the Trust's position must be the number one priority, but some of the other issues are relevant, as they are a pointer as to how negotiations could go | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:53 - Jun 14 with 1176 views | E20Jack |
I wasn't referring to you when I said that.
Again I'll say it, the old board are an irrelevance NOW to the main issue and only important issue facing us. Unless this is sorted then it won't matter a jot what the old board continue to do, we may not have a club to support in 10 years time.
That can be revisited at a later date. I will be fuming if it turns out this has made up a significant part of these discussions, it will show that priorities and focus are so jilted from reality it will be untrue. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:14 - Jun 14 with 1163 views | monmouth |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 19:53 - Jun 14 by E20Jack |
I wasn't referring to you when I said that.
Again I'll say it, the old board are an irrelevance NOW to the main issue and only important issue facing us. Unless this is sorted then it won't matter a jot what the old board continue to do, we may not have a club to support in 10 years time.
That can be revisited at a later date. I will be fuming if it turns out this has made up a significant part of these discussions, it will show that priorities and focus are so jilted from reality it will be untrue. |
Who authorised the change of articles that stitched up he Trust though, and denied and warranted the invalidity of a shareholders agreement despite using it to get their hands on Mel Nurses shares, and requesting that the Trust agree to abandon it when they realised they'd f*cked up. Who would any legal action be against? Who has effectively unduly prejudiced the Trust if anybody has?
I don't know the answers to that last bit, but I would doubt that the old bunch of disingenuous scheming dissemblers are an irrelevance just yet, are they? |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:36 - Jun 14 with 1147 views | E20Jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:14 - Jun 14 by monmouth |
Who authorised the change of articles that stitched up he Trust though, and denied and warranted the invalidity of a shareholders agreement despite using it to get their hands on Mel Nurses shares, and requesting that the Trust agree to abandon it when they realised they'd f*cked up. Who would any legal action be against? Who has effectively unduly prejudiced the Trust if anybody has?
I don't know the answers to that last bit, but I would doubt that the old bunch of disingenuous scheming dissemblers are an irrelevance just yet, are they? |
Of course we all know the lying greedy snakes sold us out. We know they are to blame, its blindingly obvious.
But having them removed from directors boxes, having privileges taken away isn't going to undo that is it? Its not going to solve any of the ACTUAL pressing issues facing the Trust now in what is THE most critical talks it has ever had - and ever likely to have again.
I am not saying ignore it forever, I am saying pick your battles. Compared to what needs to be sorted at the moment it is on the laughable end of miniscule. We are facing the end of the Trust in all but name. We are facing the prospect that the Americans have been given our 21% by proxy.
There is almost no value left in shares that should be worth £20m+, they are unsellable. We face a situation where the Americans can syphon money away from the club and the Trust receive nothing. We face a situation where we are left with unsellable shares where as they have 68% to sell and can add on our 21% value to theirs and get that money from the future sale.
We have been shafted. They have acquired 100% of a club by buying 68% while we foot the bill for the other 32% for them. That is essentially what has happened.
The Trust stated that they sent them a copy of the shareholders agreement prior to the deal being completed so both parties have prejudiced the Trust and are responsible for the deal. If that can be proved as claimed that is. [Post edited 14 Jun 2017 20:53]
| |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:52 - Jun 14 with 1126 views | monmouth |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:36 - Jun 14 by E20Jack |
Of course we all know the lying greedy snakes sold us out. We know they are to blame, its blindingly obvious.
But having them removed from directors boxes, having privileges taken away isn't going to undo that is it? Its not going to solve any of the ACTUAL pressing issues facing the Trust now in what is THE most critical talks it has ever had - and ever likely to have again.
I am not saying ignore it forever, I am saying pick your battles. Compared to what needs to be sorted at the moment it is on the laughable end of miniscule. We are facing the end of the Trust in all but name. We are facing the prospect that the Americans have been given our 21% by proxy.
There is almost no value left in shares that should be worth £20m+, they are unsellable. We face a situation where the Americans can syphon money away from the club and the Trust receive nothing. We face a situation where we are left with unsellable shares where as they have 68% to sell and can add on our 21% value to theirs and get that money from the future sale.
We have been shafted. They have acquired 100% of a club by buying 68% while we foot the bill for the other 32% for them. That is essentially what has happened.
The Trust stated that they sent them a copy of the shareholders agreement prior to the deal being completed so both parties have prejudiced the Trust and are responsible for the deal. If that can be proved as claimed that is. [Post edited 14 Jun 2017 20:53]
|
What's yor point? The decision for the members will be whether we can or ought to take legal action or not. I'm unsure whether that is against buyers or sellers.
That IS the only decision to be made. But the sellers are not irrelevant and there is no reason why they shouldn't be drummed out of the club toot sweet. That won't make any difference or cloud the legal issue at the crux. To position it as one or the other seems to me a nonsense. I want them out whether we can solve the ownership issue or not and, like nobody is suggesting, not in lieu of sorting the ownership issue. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:56 - Jun 14 with 1120 views | Starsky |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:36 - Jun 14 by E20Jack |
Of course we all know the lying greedy snakes sold us out. We know they are to blame, its blindingly obvious.
But having them removed from directors boxes, having privileges taken away isn't going to undo that is it? Its not going to solve any of the ACTUAL pressing issues facing the Trust now in what is THE most critical talks it has ever had - and ever likely to have again.
I am not saying ignore it forever, I am saying pick your battles. Compared to what needs to be sorted at the moment it is on the laughable end of miniscule. We are facing the end of the Trust in all but name. We are facing the prospect that the Americans have been given our 21% by proxy.
There is almost no value left in shares that should be worth £20m+, they are unsellable. We face a situation where the Americans can syphon money away from the club and the Trust receive nothing. We face a situation where we are left with unsellable shares where as they have 68% to sell and can add on our 21% value to theirs and get that money from the future sale.
We have been shafted. They have acquired 100% of a club by buying 68% while we foot the bill for the other 32% for them. That is essentially what has happened.
The Trust stated that they sent them a copy of the shareholders agreement prior to the deal being completed so both parties have prejudiced the Trust and are responsible for the deal. If that can be proved as claimed that is. [Post edited 14 Jun 2017 20:53]
|
You speak far more elequently on this subject than I.
So... excuse me if I'm talking crap here but if the sell outs have defrauded the trust with their dodgy sale of their shares... wouldn't one of the permutations be that they have to pay back some or all of their money accrued from the sale of their shares to the Americans? | |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:57 - Jun 14 with 1118 views | E20Jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:52 - Jun 14 by monmouth |
What's yor point? The decision for the members will be whether we can or ought to take legal action or not. I'm unsure whether that is against buyers or sellers.
That IS the only decision to be made. But the sellers are not irrelevant and there is no reason why they shouldn't be drummed out of the club toot sweet. That won't make any difference or cloud the legal issue at the crux. To position it as one or the other seems to me a nonsense. I want them out whether we can solve the ownership issue or not and, like nobody is suggesting, not in lieu of sorting the ownership issue. |
My point is that current and on going old board privileges are an irrelevance compared to the issue of complete and utter Trust decimation.
Thought that much was clear?
I am not talking about decision for members. I am talking about Trust and Americans discussions to resolve the matter. If the comparatively petty matter of old board privilages make up a major part of these discussions then I will be fuming, as should everyone else. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 21:03 - Jun 14 with 1108 views | E20Jack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 20:56 - Jun 14 by Starsky |
You speak far more elequently on this subject than I.
So... excuse me if I'm talking crap here but if the sell outs have defrauded the trust with their dodgy sale of their shares... wouldn't one of the permutations be that they have to pay back some or all of their money accrued from the sale of their shares to the Americans? |
That would be if they decide to go down the legal route. The remedy for a verdict that the Trust has been prejudiced by the contravening of the shareholders agreement will be a sale at the same value at the time of the sale.
Which in my opinion is by far the best outcome the Trust can have. It is the only way we face a realistic chance of 100% fan ownership in the future. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 12:59 - Jun 15 with 981 views | Shaky |
Well I hadn't intended commenting further on this matter until there was some kind of announcement from the Trust. However, not only does it now seem like that will never arrive but there are also a couple of things I feel need clarification so a few points.
* I don't for a second believe there is nothing definitive from the QC on the basic merits of the case at this time. Maybe he is doing other things, but the base line opinion does not take +2 months to produce. And I don't like being lied to.
* The amended Articles of Association are something of a red herring. Yes they give the Americans sweeping powers to do what they want, but they could have effectively done the same things anyway with out the amendments through a vote at a shareholders meeting. What it represents is a shortcut but the there is little effective difference in the levers of control.
* As such an announcement by the Trust that they had for example negotiated the revisions to the old Articles would be a meaningless 'win', without any practical implication.
* What is required for a meaningful negotiated settlement is that the Articles are amended to include the terms first relayed **last July** and set out here: http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/10/20/trust-members-forum-address/ (BTW, hopefull tag-along rights are included otherwise they need to be)
* Anything less than that and the formerly strategic shareholding entrusted to the care of the officers of the Trust becomes a passive minority investment, and owning such a position is directly incompatible with the most basic aims of the Trust
* As such this really is a binary choice, and the delay is unacceptable. When Cozy was thrown under the bus we got the full spiel about how it was only a misunderstanding related to communications and how the lessons from this alleged communication failure had been learned. Bwaaaaaahahaha.
Bottom line is it has taken almost a year to make no progress whatsoever. You are taking the fcuking piss. Again. You're mad. |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 13:03 - Jun 15 with 974 views | Darran |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 12:59 - Jun 15 by Shaky |
Well I hadn't intended commenting further on this matter until there was some kind of announcement from the Trust. However, not only does it now seem like that will never arrive but there are also a couple of things I feel need clarification so a few points.
* I don't for a second believe there is nothing definitive from the QC on the basic merits of the case at this time. Maybe he is doing other things, but the base line opinion does not take +2 months to produce. And I don't like being lied to.
* The amended Articles of Association are something of a red herring. Yes they give the Americans sweeping powers to do what they want, but they could have effectively done the same things anyway with out the amendments through a vote at a shareholders meeting. What it represents is a shortcut but the there is little effective difference in the levers of control.
* As such an announcement by the Trust that they had for example negotiated the revisions to the old Articles would be a meaningless 'win', without any practical implication.
* What is required for a meaningful negotiated settlement is that the Articles are amended to include the terms first relayed **last July** and set out here: http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/10/20/trust-members-forum-address/ (BTW, hopefull tag-along rights are included otherwise they need to be)
* Anything less than that and the formerly strategic shareholding entrusted to the care of the officers of the Trust becomes a passive minority investment, and owning such a position is directly incompatible with the most basic aims of the Trust
* As such this really is a binary choice, and the delay is unacceptable. When Cozy was thrown under the bus we got the full spiel about how it was only a misunderstanding related to communications and how the lessons from this alleged communication failure had been learned. Bwaaaaaahahaha.
Bottom line is it has taken almost a year to make no progress whatsoever. You are taking the fcuking piss. Again. You're mad. |
Bet you £100 there'll be an announcement soon?
Go on big mouth. |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 13:18 - Jun 15 with 954 views | swancity |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 12:59 - Jun 15 by Shaky |
Well I hadn't intended commenting further on this matter until there was some kind of announcement from the Trust. However, not only does it now seem like that will never arrive but there are also a couple of things I feel need clarification so a few points.
* I don't for a second believe there is nothing definitive from the QC on the basic merits of the case at this time. Maybe he is doing other things, but the base line opinion does not take +2 months to produce. And I don't like being lied to.
* The amended Articles of Association are something of a red herring. Yes they give the Americans sweeping powers to do what they want, but they could have effectively done the same things anyway with out the amendments through a vote at a shareholders meeting. What it represents is a shortcut but the there is little effective difference in the levers of control.
* As such an announcement by the Trust that they had for example negotiated the revisions to the old Articles would be a meaningless 'win', without any practical implication.
* What is required for a meaningful negotiated settlement is that the Articles are amended to include the terms first relayed **last July** and set out here: http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/10/20/trust-members-forum-address/ (BTW, hopefull tag-along rights are included otherwise they need to be)
* Anything less than that and the formerly strategic shareholding entrusted to the care of the officers of the Trust becomes a passive minority investment, and owning such a position is directly incompatible with the most basic aims of the Trust
* As such this really is a binary choice, and the delay is unacceptable. When Cozy was thrown under the bus we got the full spiel about how it was only a misunderstanding related to communications and how the lessons from this alleged communication failure had been learned. Bwaaaaaahahaha.
Bottom line is it has taken almost a year to make no progress whatsoever. You are taking the fcuking piss. Again. You're mad. |
You're wrong. I'm wrong. Everyone is wrong.
Darren says so.  | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 15:40 - Jun 15 with 891 views | QJumpingJack |
Are the old board of directors and current directors members of the Trust?
If they are - are they allowed/able to vote should a vote arise? | | | |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 16:20 - Jun 15 with 853 views | Shaky |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 15:40 - Jun 15 by QJumpingJack |
Are the old board of directors and current directors members of the Trust?
If they are - are they allowed/able to vote should a vote arise? |
Who gives a shit? Presumably Trust membership has yet to collapse to the point where a handful of past and present directors can sway a vote of the membership.
Although I'll concede we may well reach that point soon if the Trust don't get their collective fingers out. | |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 16:48 - Jun 15 with 823 views | EasternJack |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 12:59 - Jun 15 by Shaky |
Well I hadn't intended commenting further on this matter until there was some kind of announcement from the Trust. However, not only does it now seem like that will never arrive but there are also a couple of things I feel need clarification so a few points.
* I don't for a second believe there is nothing definitive from the QC on the basic merits of the case at this time. Maybe he is doing other things, but the base line opinion does not take +2 months to produce. And I don't like being lied to.
* The amended Articles of Association are something of a red herring. Yes they give the Americans sweeping powers to do what they want, but they could have effectively done the same things anyway with out the amendments through a vote at a shareholders meeting. What it represents is a shortcut but the there is little effective difference in the levers of control.
* As such an announcement by the Trust that they had for example negotiated the revisions to the old Articles would be a meaningless 'win', without any practical implication.
* What is required for a meaningful negotiated settlement is that the Articles are amended to include the terms first relayed **last July** and set out here: http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2016/10/20/trust-members-forum-address/ (BTW, hopefull tag-along rights are included otherwise they need to be)
* Anything less than that and the formerly strategic shareholding entrusted to the care of the officers of the Trust becomes a passive minority investment, and owning such a position is directly incompatible with the most basic aims of the Trust
* As such this really is a binary choice, and the delay is unacceptable. When Cozy was thrown under the bus we got the full spiel about how it was only a misunderstanding related to communications and how the lessons from this alleged communication failure had been learned. Bwaaaaaahahaha.
Bottom line is it has taken almost a year to make no progress whatsoever. You are taking the fcuking piss. Again. You're mad. |
Very good post.
The last two points are the reasons I've not renewed my membership.
It's a massive shame, however the Trust shareholding has become irrelevant to our club owners and irrelevant to our supporters. |  |
| |
| Any news from Trust or developments ? on 14:04 - Jun 16 with 654 views | QJumpingJack |
If legal action is voted for, does it mean the court case will run through the 17/18 season which could be disruptive to the club especially if we are dragged into a relegation battle? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
