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.
Over the last few months we have been drip fed very worrying and alarming news. In fact, only a relatively short period of time ago a thread started by Westx who had suggested potential American "investment" was met with complete disbelief and derision.
Most of us, apart from the odd [legitimate] gripe here and there were happy plodding on, with what we all now to a certain degree feel is our right - to be challenging the best teams in the land and world on a level footing and getting massive credit and plaudits for doing so.
We have always been the club that did things differently. In fairness, there wasn't a lot else we could have done, we didn't have the resources to splash out big and apart from the odd, relatively small, directors loan, we lived within our means.
I am not going to go trawling through the net to find Jenkins' sound bites of which they would be by the barrow full on our prudent and careful fiscal strategy. Suffice to say the Directors of SCFC were and still are very proud of what they have achieved. Even more suffice to say is that we, as fans, say and feel the same.
There is a big white elephant in the room however, at Swansea City FC, literally in Board meetings at the club, and that is us - Yep, pretty much every single one of us, because not just for the sake of the usual cliche trollied out that no club can survive without its fans, it was literally the case with us. Yes, "us", like Kevin Johns stated at Wembley three years ago.... THIS IS "OUR" DAY!!!
It was as things turned out but it's always been "our" club. For years and years we spent in the lower leagues and no matter where we were or whenever that was, if I or your good selves had to talk about the Swans with anyone we'd meet, it was always with a very matter of fact and passionate royal "we"!!
Who is "we" they may have asked and even more proudly responded with Swansea City FC the greatest team in football.... And yep, this was actually meant, even though we may have been fifteenth in Division 4 at the time.
Owners and chairmen have come and gone but still we stuck by our club. For years and years we did not have a pot to piss in and whatever money the club did get coming in nobody really could be sure if it was being accounted for totally in the best interests of the football club.
The very same Directors and Chairman who sit on our Board today would have been the very same to have questioned the motives of anyone that is in the privileged position of being the guardians of our local club.
When Petty was ousted and the never before seen events ensued with the rallying call of the Jack Army and Tesco bags full of used notes, bucket after bucket loads of hard earned coins and more than a little enterprise and endeavour, everyone swore at the time to never again be in a position like we were back then.
The football history since then is just too magical to actually believe it happened to us all. The same people among us now, the same faces I have seen over 30 years plus in varying different market towns, shitty stadiums, service stations etc, who still do and who always will, refer to us with the royal "we", well we now say it with even more vigour and belief and look, we told you all back then we were the greatest team in football and we weren't lying!!!
So let's get things very clear because I am not a fans leader and have never wanted to be one, no matter what some want to accuse me of. I am a dyed in the wool Jack and bearing in mind a home game for me was 25 miles away, I have more than earned a right to speak out in a public forum if I feel standards are slipping and we are potentially slipping back to old and dangerous ways.
Has anyone learned anything about the club in the last few weeks?
Maybe that the club is actually only 50/50 away from being sold from underneath us?
Or maybe how we have certain individuals who are more than tied into the club on a personal level when perhaps it's just not good practice to be in that conflicting of interests position?
That our Directors' businesses have been paid huge amounts for work they must have invoiced the club for?
When and how Leigh bought his shares in the club and whether that was indeed the darkest hour of the Trust and whether or not lessons were learned from it?
I will meet Leigh as he's apparently asked to meet me, not because he's singled me out as a fans leader, more probably in light of the above questions I have been asking on a public forum. A public forum on the club we all love and a chance to spread more transparency to a wider audience so we can all discuss the matters and issues we are raising.
I have no doubt Leigh Dineen is a good bloke at heart. I don't agree with what he did when he bought his shares but he has told me nothing sinister happened which of course at this moment in time I believe. I don't agree with his defensiveness when fans have legitimate concerns about the department he runs and I don't think he comes out and apologises when mistakes clearly happen and cost us.
I also feel the Trust have not really gone into battle for the fans and I also strongly believe the second largest shareholder has the weakest voice in board meetings - and yes, that's us the fans. I also don't like the idea of our current supporters director having a personal business interest in winning tenders as I don't honestly feel that is fair on him or us,
I would like our club to remain a part of us but from now, an even bigger part of us. Like I said a few days ago - look to Germany not America!
The Premier Legue money due to us every year is just as much ours as theirs.
Do not let some foreign money man come in to our club and take all this away from us.
Leigh, get ready with some honest answers and look me in the eye when doing so.
SCFC - ONE LOVE
[Post edited 21 Dec 2014 13:50]
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
I have the same trouble understanding why T2C thinks you have any credibility. I'd mention someone else but, well, you know, they don't.
You're losing your mojo Shaky. I'm worried. Are you OK? Is there something about Christmas that brings back some unhappy memories?
To be honest I just don't have the time or inclination. Christmas is for family not nerdboarding.
Losing my mojo?
What I believe is happening is that you have shot yourself in the foot for the umpteenth time, and people are starting to get the message.
Remember the sequence of events here is that you made an unsubstantiated statement, I asked you to substantiate it, and you retorted no you do it yourself.
What I believe is happening is that you have shot yourself in the foot for the umpteenth time, and people are starting to get the message.
Remember the sequence of events here is that you made an unsubstantiated statement, I asked you to substantiate it, and you retorted no you do it yourself.
You are beyond a joke.
What unsubstantiated statement? As I said, do your own work.
I'm disappointed Shaky, especially in your recent exchanges with Jacko. Such laziness in general.
What unsubstantiated statement? As I said, do your own work.
I'm disappointed Shaky, especially in your recent exchanges with Jacko. Such laziness in general.
well, well, I return from a weekend away, log on to have a look at the threads praising the team for getting the job done, albeit that we weren't quite at our free flowing best, and instead find another little spat with Shaky at the centre of it.
What a surprise...
Unfortunately I am going away again tomorrow, so may have to wait a while to find out what, if anything, has been clarified at the summit meeting tomorrow.
I have already stated my list of things I'd like to know the answer to, although I can't say I'm holding my breath that anything will be revealed tomorrow. Indeed, I would think that of the list of things I'd quite like an answer to, outside the general question of 'what's changed to make the board think we can't continue as is anymore' unfortunately I fear that they will all be subject to an NDA.
Cracking arguments going on over the weekend though - you can tell it's the season of goodwill to all men (and women of course).
0
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 23:15 - Dec 21 with 2028 views
The Prem money comes in chunks throughout the season.. if I remember correctly.. I'm not sure if the Trust can actually influence much if an offer comes in.. it's an actual waiting game.. with so many implications we've got to get spot on.. we need the best Swans 'fans' possible in this decision.. if an offer comes in.. I don't have full confidence in this investment being 'squeaky' clean..
The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds.
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 20:25 - Dec 21 by Shaky
To be clear I am very much hoping that the Trust is in the final stages of negotiating a definitive agreement. But then you are staying in.
For those selling there is no need for any elaborate agreements assuming obviously they a not required to vote through any of the measures in your agreement with the new investor.
Instead they just need an offer price.
Phil, I just want to come back to this post in response to your question "Why would there be no heads of agreement?"
I have been giving short shrift to Team W@nk recently because I consider their bullshit transparently obvious except to the most mentally challenged individuals, but it is absolutely critical you understand the nuance of the issue here.
When I said I hoped you were negotiating a definitive agreement, I could equally have said a Memorandum of Understanding or a Memorandum of Agreement.
In contrast a Heads of Agreement takes the form of a pre-Agreement. Noclue has read somewhere that it is often used in mergers and acquisitions where it is a preview of a full blown merger agreement (in reality usually a takeover) between two companies. However, apart from the fact that is obviously not the situation here, the key point is that a Heads of Agreement is non-binding.
IF the document you are currently working on says the words Heads of Agreement on the front page you need to:
(1) Sack your legal guy
(2) Carefully consider whether the Mercuns are acting in good faith or are deliberately trying to con you.
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 09:19 - Dec 22 by jackonicko
The question asked was about a typical process. I just explained it might be a little more nuanced than your glib answer.
If it said Letter of Intent or Term Sheet, would you also sack the legal guy?
Glib answer? You've got a f*cking cheek.
The guy asked "It would be nice to know a timescale on the current sell off" and I gave him precisely that.
He then asked "I don't know if Jackinoko or anyone has a basic version of the steps on this kind of deal"
Let me repeat that: **this kind of deal**
What you gave him was a generic copy/paste job on a common approach in the merger of two companies. Why did you give him something generic totally unrelated to the situation at hand? Because that's all you've got.
As usual you are unable to come up with anything substantive, only the generic, the bland cliche, and the throwaway smartarse comment.
And here you go again trying to blag your way out of the potentially catastrophic recommendation that the current process should be leading up to a Heads of Agreement.
After all, if it ever came to a dispute, the High Court Judge would just tear up the non-binding Heads of Agreement and substitute it with something appropriate if you tell him that's what you intended, right? No need at all to use the right terms and the right document forms in law is there, as long as you know what you mean it will all work out in the end.
I don't like the way this is being done, but whilst there's an opportunity to ask questions, can you ask why they haven't done something to alleviate the crush in the concourse behind the north? It's crammed back there when we take over part of the away allocation - not only would it be carnage in an emergency, it's a bloody nightmare to get a cup of tea/beer.
The guy asked "It would be nice to know a timescale on the current sell off" and I gave him precisely that.
He then asked "I don't know if Jackinoko or anyone has a basic version of the steps on this kind of deal"
Let me repeat that: **this kind of deal**
What you gave him was a generic copy/paste job on a common approach in the merger of two companies. Why did you give him something generic totally unrelated to the situation at hand? Because that's all you've got.
As usual you are unable to come up with anything substantive, only the generic, the bland cliche, and the throwaway smartarse comment.
And here you go again trying to blag your way out of the potentially catastrophic recommendation that the current process should be leading up to a Heads of Agreement.
After all, if it ever came to a dispute, the High Court Judge would just tear up the non-binding Heads of Agreement and substitute it with something appropriate if you tell him that's what you intended, right? No need at all to use the right terms and the right document forms in law is there, as long as you know what you mean it will all work out in the end.
Dickhead.
[Post edited 22 Dec 2014 11:29]
Such angst, Shaky. And such naughty words too.
I do enjoy the irony that you are accusing me of cutting and pasting, though. I'm afraid I'm unable to quote a textbook or wikipedia reference for what I wrote, as I typed it all by myself. As I said before, I'm glad you agree it is a model answer, which I achieved without having to look anything up.
*pat on back for Jacko*
0
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 12:30 - Dec 22 with 1761 views
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 18:27 - Dec 21 by jackonicko
Things here are a little more nuanced than Shaky suggests. 21 days is indeed common and based on acceptances, but not always.
The usual order of things is preliminary discussions followed by a Heads of Agreement which sets out the headline terms. Such a document is usually non binding, but sets out the areas of agreement in principle. Once this is in place, the parties then move into a next phase, where the parties at least know they are in broad agreement.
The buyer will do due diligence on the target (the extent of which depends on the deal, it could be extensive, it could be quite light touch). The solicitors on both sides will enter into negotiations on a Sale and Purchase Agreement, which sets out the binding terms and conditions of the deal. The devil is always in the detail, which is why the heads of agreement is non binding. Either side can usually walk away before signing the SPA.
However, the heads of agreement may have some binding terms, such as a 'break fee', to recompense the other party for costs incurred in certain circumstances should the other side walk away. These don't always exist.
The SPA will probably only be between those shareholders who are selling and those who are buying. However, due to the fact that this is a small private company with a limited number of shareholders, a shareholders agreement usually exists. Therefore, the terms and requirements of the SHA will also need to be complied with, which could specify timeframes for notification and preemption rights which are different to the ones Shaky has suggested. It may be that a new SHA will be required to reflect the new ownership model, which means all shareholders will need to agree.
The level of acceptances will depend on the offer that is being made. Because of the ownership structure of the club currently, and the speculated details of the offer in the press, it may require all or nothing acceptance by the (non trust) shareholders to proceed.
So, clear as mud then :)
It may be that a new SHA will be required to reflect the new ownership model, which means all shareholders will need to agree. Layman's question - would this be the Trust's trump card ?
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 13:26 - Dec 22 by longlostjack
It may be that a new SHA will be required to reflect the new ownership model, which means all shareholders will need to agree. Layman's question - would this be the Trust's trump card ?
First of all we don't know what the existing shareholders' agreement says about approval of changes, but I doubt very much all of them have to agree since that is a recipe for total inertia.
As for whether a new shareholders' agreement is needed that is possible but I think it is far preferable to instead incorporate the salient points into the articles of association. Not only does that ensure permanence but it also gives transparency.
People talk about the 6 shareholders plus the Trust currently, but the reality of the situation is that there are what +10,000 Trust member/shareholders and I believe they have a obvious right to know what the deal is.
Not really my cup of tea as she really crucifies a great atmospheric song but my favourite us the following which my grandmother used to sing at our Boxing Day parties with advocaat for the ladies , Manns Brow for the men and Emva Cream for me.
We crossed swords but I wish you well in the new year notwithstanding..
and now for you.listen carefully as this is probably my favourite
with respect and love for a peaceful new year..SERIOUSLY
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 17:31 - Dec 21 by _
I think critical and important questions are being asked of the Trust and its influence, or lack of it, within the club and its general usefulness to the fans they represent ?
All the questions that are now coming forward would almost be impossible to ask or get right in a fans forum.
This is the best way for all fans of Swansea City to address any concerns we have and get these questions answered, no matter how sensitive they are.
The Trust hierarchy have become too close with the club to have any great influence. It's all well and good having a friendly working relationship but not where you win no battles whatsoever on behalf of your members.
2 years 2 days ago..
* 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
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 17:35 - Dec 21 by exiledclaseboy
"The Trust hierarchy have become too close with the club to have any great influence. It's all well and good having a friendly working relationship but not where you win no battles whatsoever on behalf of your members."
How can you know that? How can you know that the upper echelons of the Trust are too close and has little influence? This is surely just an assumption you've made?
Thing is Cudey, I didn't know for sure, apart from the obvious printing conflicts of interest.
This all came about due to the complete lack of punch the Trust ever had in the Boardroom.
* 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
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 17:40 - Dec 21 by Uxbridge
It's also completely and utterly wrong. Which, again, would have been quite clear to anyone attending the recent forum. I might have mentioned that before.
Completely and utterly wrong???
Can you explain this Andrew? As it clearly wasn't. Were you aware of Cooze's remuneration at this point?
* 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
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 17:45 - Dec 21 by exiledclaseboy
From the little I know about the work of the Trust I absolutely do not agree with you that they are too close to the club and carry very little influence. My view is that the Trust is now more important than ever and we should all be throwing our collective weight behind its efforts, which I'd imagine are being carried out behind closed doors out of necessity at this point. I believe that your current crusade has raised some very pertinent questions which do require answers but not in the manner that you've raised them.
The Trust's problem is with communication (or the lack of it) and I've said that many times. That lack of communication breeds speculation and resentment and they need to sort it out and sort it out now.
From the little you knew, indeed!!
* 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
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 20:13 - Dec 23 by TheResurrection
Completely and utterly wrong???
Can you explain this Andrew? As it clearly wasn't. Were you aware of Cooze's remuneration at this point?
Chris mun, it's Christmas. I don't know why you've chosen today for your latest barrage but I've got no interest in joining in. Last post from me. Take that however you want, my family are coming first this weekend.
It's clearly wasn't? How is that so? You can't substantiate that as those in attendance could attest. Not sure why you've segued into HC payments which are a separate issue, but I found out about the details about that as part of the governance review.
The Future, The "Investment", The Trust & Raising Awareness-My work here is done on 20:14 - Dec 23 by TheResurrection
From the little you knew, indeed!!
Indeed. Hindsight makes fools of us all sometimes. You were right, Chris, Ive said so before, very recently. Not sure what your purpose is here other than to prove what's now obvious. If the purpose is to humiliate me and others for expressing a genuinely held opinion at the time it was expressed, well I've got far more important things to worry about at the moment than being wrong on the internet two years ago.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
It's crammed back there when we take over part of the away allocation - not only would it be carnage in an emergency, it's a bloody nightmare to get a cup of tea/beer. 
