| Trust statement 20:05 - Jun 13 with 28891 views | Joe_bradshaw |
The court case is happening at last.
Thanks Joe, a little bit from me to everyone.
Hi folks, this is clearly a topic many enjoy commenting on, but please remain consistent in your responses avoiding potential slurs on any characters involved and remain objective.
Thanks ðŸ‘
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust statement on 19:12 - Jun 14 with 1708 views | BillyChong |
Mindy Kalling ah yes, I remember her from the night in the Patti Pavillion. Pretty sure I saw her with a bucket on the back of the north bank. Fair play. |  | | |
| Trust statement on 19:25 - Jun 14 with 1678 views | monmouth |
| Trust statement on 19:07 - Jun 14 by waynekerr55 |
Apples with apples old chap. Or have you run out of things that your mates want you to post but have been proven for the bullshìt that they were? |
The best part is that everything that poor Mindy shelled out was trousered by his scumbag mates, not ‘invested in the club’ at all.
He’s ignoring the fact his mates ‘invested’ 5% of folk hall compared to Mindy to, unlike the Trust, make millions.
His mates are disgusting lowlife scum. And he is their mouthpiece. His mum must be so proud. “Mummy mummy when I grow up I want to be the lie generating mouthpiece for a bunch of scumbags”. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:28 - Jun 14 with 1652 views | 73__73 |
Easy to do , being a keyboard warrior | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:54 - Jun 14 with 1638 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust statement on 19:25 - Jun 14 by monmouth |
The best part is that everything that poor Mindy shelled out was trousered by his scumbag mates, not ‘invested in the club’ at all.
He’s ignoring the fact his mates ‘invested’ 5% of folk hall compared to Mindy to, unlike the Trust, make millions.
His mates are disgusting lowlife scum. And he is their mouthpiece. His mum must be so proud. “Mummy mummy when I grow up I want to be the lie generating mouthpiece for a bunch of scumbags”. |
In fairness, when one of the supposed "top" journalists (Wathan) spouts about investment, people aren't likely to dig deeper.
There's nothing that the new owners have done that the old ones could have. To be honest I doubt anyone of sound mind would have criticised them for selling up if they'd been up front. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 20:02 - Jun 14 with 1627 views | monmouth |
| Trust statement on 19:54 - Jun 14 by waynekerr55 |
In fairness, when one of the supposed "top" journalists (Wathan) spouts about investment, people aren't likely to dig deeper.
There's nothing that the new owners have done that the old ones could have. To be honest I doubt anyone of sound mind would have criticised them for selling up if they'd been up front. |
Depends who they sold to and what longer term protections could have been put in place…in conjunction with the Trust.
Not the first people that would pony up the money. If they’d realised what the Trust could do, they’d have been excluded earlier in the rush to fall over themselves to take Nowell and Moores’ money.
As it happens we got luckier than we might have…for a while, but we are now totally ‘in play’ again and at the mercy of the next bunch that fancy a shot. That is what they said would never happen again and that is why they are scum. Not for selling an asset, but the context of what they actually did and how they actually did it.
I don’t really see how any of that can be spun in their favour, and how their mouthpieces can retain their own self respect. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 20:20 - Jun 14 with 1592 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 19:04 - Jun 14 by KeithHaynes |
I’m certain it won’t get there. |
It's sad that it'll take a summons to get them to wise up.
Remember that interview they gave last season when we were riding high? The one where they claimed a willingness to engage with the trust again? Lies. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 21:39 - Jun 14 with 1537 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 17:42 - Jun 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
But I was not talking about 4% I was talking about 1%. Why 1%? Well 1% is closer to the "nothing at all" quoted in the statement. To dilute the SCST shares to 1% will take much more than your paltry £20m.
Of course if the US people value the club at £2m in the league 2. 1% will cost £20,000 and the SCST can spend £420,000 to buy 21% and maintain its holding. They have the money in the bank currently to invest in the club. This is what they should be doing. Obviously this is quite straight forward in a friendly constructive relationship.
I have seen no example of any investor piutting £20m into a league 2 club. The Wrexham big shots are intending blowing away their cometition with £2m in the National league.
The SCST are architects of their own downfall in effect. 21% of a Premeir League football team with no money in the bank. Dilution was inevitable sooner or later. 21% was way too big a holding once the club left league 1. [Post edited 14 Jun 2021 17:46]
|
I gave an example that showed the Trust being diluted to 1.8%
I also explained why the Trust cannot invest at the same value.
The only one that mentioned League 2 was you. They can value the club at whatever they want - as long as the Trust are prevented from investing at the same value and other shareholders can do so i5 only harms the Trust.
You quite clearly don’t understand the issues.
The Trust aren’t the ones that have meant that the holding remains at 21%. | | | |
| Trust statement on 21:48 - Jun 14 with 1525 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust statement on 20:02 - Jun 14 by monmouth |
Depends who they sold to and what longer term protections could have been put in place…in conjunction with the Trust.
Not the first people that would pony up the money. If they’d realised what the Trust could do, they’d have been excluded earlier in the rush to fall over themselves to take Nowell and Moores’ money.
As it happens we got luckier than we might have…for a while, but we are now totally ‘in play’ again and at the mercy of the next bunch that fancy a shot. That is what they said would never happen again and that is why they are scum. Not for selling an asset, but the context of what they actually did and how they actually did it.
I don’t really see how any of that can be spun in their favour, and how their mouthpieces can retain their own self respect. |
Agreed. Although that's what hubris and shìt for brains does to people [Post edited 14 Jun 2021 21:48]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust statement on 01:41 - Jun 15 with 1427 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Trust statement on 19:12 - Jun 14 by BillyChong |
Mindy Kalling ah yes, I remember her from the night in the Patti Pavillion. Pretty sure I saw her with a bucket on the back of the north bank. Fair play. |
The vast, vast majority at the Liberty wouldn’t even know what you were referencing.
I think stating that people must have been around at a certain time in order to qualify to be involved in the club is a little unrealistic.
In fact, I would guess there are a fair chunk on here that wouldn’t have been around either, yet were within shouting distance. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 06:58 - Jun 15 with 1401 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 01:41 - Jun 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
The vast, vast majority at the Liberty wouldn’t even know what you were referencing.
I think stating that people must have been around at a certain time in order to qualify to be involved in the club is a little unrealistic.
In fact, I would guess there are a fair chunk on here that wouldn’t have been around either, yet were within shouting distance. |
I don't think they were saying anything about anybody qualifying for anything.
But Mindy Kalling's 'investment' was brought up by a poster as if it's something to be lauded, while the trust were derided by that poster. So that post that you are referencing was a nice way of putting the involvement of both parties in context. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 10:42 - Jun 15 with 1324 views | shaggyrogers |
How can one shareholder suing another not effect the club ? I can't think how anybody would say it won't. It will effect the status quo in the boardroom if there is any. It could effect the relationship between the Trust rep and the officers if the yanks tell the officers to cool the relationship. It could effect the club financially. The yanks could easily pull a management fee out to cover costs.
I agree the trust have to go to court. They have been mandated to do so but it WILL effect the club whatever anyone says.
On another note. Are the trust going to court to get sellers/buyers to buy all their shares. If so this would mean them having no shares and no representative on the board at a time when the government is pushing ahead to see how supporters can have a say at boardroom level. Is that really what they want or are they hopeful of only selling some of their stake ? I'm asking the question as i really can't find anything as to what they will get if they win. | | | |
| Trust statement on 11:43 - Jun 15 with 1282 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 21:39 - Jun 14 by londonlisa2001 |
I gave an example that showed the Trust being diluted to 1.8%
I also explained why the Trust cannot invest at the same value.
The only one that mentioned League 2 was you. They can value the club at whatever they want - as long as the Trust are prevented from investing at the same value and other shareholders can do so i5 only harms the Trust.
You quite clearly don’t understand the issues.
The Trust aren’t the ones that have meant that the holding remains at 21%. |
Im afraid you have to look at some pretty bizarre scenarios to justify a line in the statement which is false and probably simply not checked. It suggested it would be quite easy for the US owners to dilute the SCST shares to nothing.
In your scenario Swanea have to be in the National league to be worth a palty £2m and on top of that the US investors, simply to harm the SCST, will invest £20m. Fanciful.
If Swansea remain in the championship it is practically impossible for the SCST to be diluted to nothing. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 11:54]
|  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 11:51 - Jun 15 with 1269 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 18:56 - Jun 14 by max936 |
The idea of a clubs football trust is to amass funds to keep for a rainy day, should the club fall on hard times, not to invest into the club for everyday running costs or transfer funds.
Some just want to keep rehashing the nonsense that the Trust refused to sell their shareholding, which is completely untrue, the Trust carried out due diligence on the first yanks that wanted to buy the club and rightly decided against them, the then majority owners weren't gonna be out done a second time and went completely behind the backs of the Trust in selling to Levien and Kaplan, the sale was all about self interest first and foremost.
We've been over this time and time and time again etc, etc
And we still got people who will not accept it, because they don't want to, for reasons only known to them.
Hope the truth all comes out, with this court case and then we'll all know the truth. |
Some background reading for you Max.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/31489913 | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:23 - Jun 15 with 1249 views | Boundy |
| Trust statement on 01:41 - Jun 15 by Dr_Parnassus |
The vast, vast majority at the Liberty wouldn’t even know what you were referencing.
I think stating that people must have been around at a certain time in order to qualify to be involved in the club is a little unrealistic.
In fact, I would guess there are a fair chunk on here that wouldn’t have been around either, yet were within shouting distance. |
Maybe not but there's a enough who do all the same . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:32 - Jun 15 with 1229 views | waynekerr55 |
What point are you trying to make, other than amplifying the reason why the Trust were excluded.
Tell me then, if your mates cared so much for the club, why did they sign over voting rights but maintained shares? | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:01 - Jun 15 with 1180 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 10:42 - Jun 15 by shaggyrogers |
How can one shareholder suing another not effect the club ? I can't think how anybody would say it won't. It will effect the status quo in the boardroom if there is any. It could effect the relationship between the Trust rep and the officers if the yanks tell the officers to cool the relationship. It could effect the club financially. The yanks could easily pull a management fee out to cover costs.
I agree the trust have to go to court. They have been mandated to do so but it WILL effect the club whatever anyone says.
On another note. Are the trust going to court to get sellers/buyers to buy all their shares. If so this would mean them having no shares and no representative on the board at a time when the government is pushing ahead to see how supporters can have a say at boardroom level. Is that really what they want or are they hopeful of only selling some of their stake ? I'm asking the question as i really can't find anything as to what they will get if they win. |
I stated the simple face that the club IS involved in this action too,albeit in a periferal way .
It is about the sale of the CLUB. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:02 - Jun 15 with 1182 views | 3swan |
| Trust statement on 12:32 - Jun 15 by waynekerr55 |
What point are you trying to make, other than amplifying the reason why the Trust were excluded.
Tell me then, if your mates cared so much for the club, why did they sign over voting rights but maintained shares? |
That link refers to the failed Moores bid in 2015
The link to the Trust statement on the 2016 sale is below
"including a sale of the Trust’s shareholding."
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/12/31/detailed-trust-response-to-huw-jenkins-i
As we have previously stated, the Trust was often frustrated by the lack of progress made during those months as the buyers focused on the deal with the selling shareholders, which was concluded in July 2016. Again, it is completely inaccurate to say that there was sufficient engagement and a desire to include the Trust in that deal.
The Trust’s discussions with the buyers continued until August 2016, where all options were investigated, including a sale of the Trust’s shareholding. Apart from a tentative offer in August 2016 regarding a sale of part of our shareholding, which was quickly rescinded in the following days, no such formal offer was ever received. It was at this time that discussions ceased and the Trust assessed its legal position by taking the advice of Counsel. | | | |
| Trust statement on 13:04 - Jun 15 with 1179 views | monmouth |
| Trust statement on 11:43 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Im afraid you have to look at some pretty bizarre scenarios to justify a line in the statement which is false and probably simply not checked. It suggested it would be quite easy for the US owners to dilute the SCST shares to nothing.
In your scenario Swanea have to be in the National league to be worth a palty £2m and on top of that the US investors, simply to harm the SCST, will invest £20m. Fanciful.
If Swansea remain in the championship it is practically impossible for the SCST to be diluted to nothing. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 11:54]
|
Is it? what’s the value of the club now today if Silverstein converts his debt to equity, and who sets that value? Oh and what remedies do minority shareholders have if the value set is detrimental to their interest? | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:05 - Jun 15 with 1177 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 12:32 - Jun 15 by waynekerr55 |
What point are you trying to make, other than amplifying the reason why the Trust were excluded.
Tell me then, if your mates cared so much for the club, why did they sign over voting rights but maintained shares? |
First up, if you want to debate with me you need to tidy up your game and show some respect. I have no mates in the club. None at all. Is that clear?
They gave up their voted rights because they sold them and had no use for them. They were perfectly happy for the US owners to make all the decisions. They sold the club to good well respected US buyers already in the sports entertaiment business with long track records of good management.
None of the other owners wanted the fans group to have a veto over their decsions. The SCST have a different "narrative" to every one else. There are people in the membership that want Swansea to be Exeter city with themselves on the board with nice trips to Kidderminster and Torquay. These are "know your place Welshmen and women" not the driving striving "sellouts" who go to Old Trafford abuse their manager and win.
For example the SCST hold their 21% holding as the most important thing. They therefore do not favour outside investment as this will dilute them. They wanted to run the club with no money and no investment. The fact that the club had been sucessful was down to the work of the so called "sellouts". It will probably never be repeated.
To put is simply if you want Swansea to be a low expectation "Exeter city" fan owned club support the SCST. If you want Swansea city to be like Norwich city, Burnley or Blackburn" support the owners. Its is as simple as that. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 13:10]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:14 - Jun 15 with 1154 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 13:05 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
First up, if you want to debate with me you need to tidy up your game and show some respect. I have no mates in the club. None at all. Is that clear?
They gave up their voted rights because they sold them and had no use for them. They were perfectly happy for the US owners to make all the decisions. They sold the club to good well respected US buyers already in the sports entertaiment business with long track records of good management.
None of the other owners wanted the fans group to have a veto over their decsions. The SCST have a different "narrative" to every one else. There are people in the membership that want Swansea to be Exeter city with themselves on the board with nice trips to Kidderminster and Torquay. These are "know your place Welshmen and women" not the driving striving "sellouts" who go to Old Trafford abuse their manager and win.
For example the SCST hold their 21% holding as the most important thing. They therefore do not favour outside investment as this will dilute them. They wanted to run the club with no money and no investment. The fact that the club had been sucessful was down to the work of the so called "sellouts". It will probably never be repeated.
To put is simply if you want Swansea to be a low expectation "Exeter city" fan owned club support the SCST. If you want Swansea city to be like Norwich city, Burnley or Blackburn" support the owners. Its is as simple as that. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 13:10]
|
I would agree with the Negative posting as regards our possible/probable relegation to the lower leagues.And people chide me for negativity. imply staggering irony. People's hatred of fellow posters and fans overides all.
Our club was sold/missold by (almost) Swansea people who stabbed other almot Swansea people in the back.
The reason we had a Trust was to protect the club .Innit.
I read much about unity on here but see little evidence of it .
I want thee well respected owners well out of the club and bought by people with real money that can move us forward instead of being the ragged ,skint waif of a club we eem to be .Yet,not long ago we were strutting our stuff in the Prem.People have forgotten that and show little sign of any hurt preferring to rip into fellow fans and foreseeing doom and gloom. This is why we need a Trust? For WHEN we fall into oblivion again.
Weird or what | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:23 - Jun 15 with 1139 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 13:04 - Jun 15 by monmouth |
Is it? what’s the value of the club now today if Silverstein converts his debt to equity, and who sets that value? Oh and what remedies do minority shareholders have if the value set is detrimental to their interest? |
Minor shareholder rights are protected in United Kingdom law for sure. It is not my field. Generally the UK is seen as a good place to do business and a good place to invest. The law is respected. I would think it would be easy enough to value the club by an independent assessor just like your house.
If the SCST are not happy with the law they should not have bought shares in the first place. The SCST will be in the identical position as the other Welsh shareholders who do have a good relationship with the US owners. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 13:25]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:30 - Jun 15 with 1127 views | jack_lord |
| Trust statement on 13:14 - Jun 15 by onehunglow |
I would agree with the Negative posting as regards our possible/probable relegation to the lower leagues.And people chide me for negativity. imply staggering irony. People's hatred of fellow posters and fans overides all.
Our club was sold/missold by (almost) Swansea people who stabbed other almot Swansea people in the back.
The reason we had a Trust was to protect the club .Innit.
I read much about unity on here but see little evidence of it .
I want thee well respected owners well out of the club and bought by people with real money that can move us forward instead of being the ragged ,skint waif of a club we eem to be .Yet,not long ago we were strutting our stuff in the Prem.People have forgotten that and show little sign of any hurt preferring to rip into fellow fans and foreseeing doom and gloom. This is why we need a Trust? For WHEN we fall into oblivion again.
Weird or what |
Rich, just for some clarity (and I agree with your sentiments) Katzen and his mate are about as Welsh as John the Clogg. They owned about 25% of the club's shares between them.
Does the gentleman defending the former majority owners believe that the supporters are going to get behind his version of the facts. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:35 - Jun 15 with 1117 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 13:30 - Jun 15 by jack_lord |
Rich, just for some clarity (and I agree with your sentiments) Katzen and his mate are about as Welsh as John the Clogg. They owned about 25% of the club's shares between them.
Does the gentleman defending the former majority owners believe that the supporters are going to get behind his version of the facts. |
Jase.
So are you saying that no local lads were involved in the missale and that those responsible were not Swansea men.
That puts matters in a different perspective for me.
And thanks for a decent exchange. Others need t follow your example | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:36 - Jun 15 with 1118 views | 3swan |
| Trust statement on 13:23 - Jun 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Minor shareholder rights are protected in United Kingdom law for sure. It is not my field. Generally the UK is seen as a good place to do business and a good place to invest. The law is respected. I would think it would be easy enough to value the club by an independent assessor just like your house.
If the SCST are not happy with the law they should not have bought shares in the first place. The SCST will be in the identical position as the other Welsh shareholders who do have a good relationship with the US owners. [Post edited 15 Jun 2021 13:25]
|
I'd be surprised if Huw Jenkins has a good relationship, if the comments made about him going against the owners in the James to Leeds transfer and then leaving as chairman soon after. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
