| Takeover Confirmed on 16:15 - Jun 7 with 1483 views | jackjackjackjack |
Has there been a statement from the new owners?
It's good that they haven't come out with "we're aiming for the Champions League", "Swansea till I die" etc. Just sit back, let Huw run the club, and take some cash out every year. |  |
|  |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:16 - Jun 7 with 1479 views | costalotta |
| Takeover Confirmed on 15:50 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
Ah the HJ dilemma. Personally I struggle with this one. He's done an excellent job at the helm of the club by any objective measure. Do we jettison that? Could we anyway ... clearly the major shareholder are keen to keep him on.
The Trust are already in direct dialogue with the Americans. |
Dilemma? You don't say!
I think there are many now that might struggle little with your view regarding HJ. No one doubts the fantastic job HJ along with many others have done on getting the club to where it is today. But you're referring to the past. The good will has gone or there is very little left and it seems to me that even this is being eroded rather quickly.
Perhaps the Trust are going for the Vito Corleone approach...'Keep your friends close but your...' You get the picture.
"Do we jettison that? Could we anyway" - Let's flip that...Your a leading light in the Trust, you tell us. If we cannot or will not then i'm sure that begs a few questions from the fans and members... |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:31 - Jun 7 with 1420 views | tomdickharry |
Looks like the link doesn't work. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:34 - Jun 7 with 1400 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:16 - Jun 7 by costalotta |
Dilemma? You don't say!
I think there are many now that might struggle little with your view regarding HJ. No one doubts the fantastic job HJ along with many others have done on getting the club to where it is today. But you're referring to the past. The good will has gone or there is very little left and it seems to me that even this is being eroded rather quickly.
Perhaps the Trust are going for the Vito Corleone approach...'Keep your friends close but your...' You get the picture.
"Do we jettison that? Could we anyway" - Let's flip that...Your a leading light in the Trust, you tell us. If we cannot or will not then i'm sure that begs a few questions from the fans and members... |
I'm just one of many. I doubt my views hold sway. I haven't made up my mind what my own view yet ... it's a difficult balance between retaining someone who knows how to keep us in this division or whether all bridges have been burnt. Then, if a majority shareholder says they want him to stay, whose opinion holds sway? |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:35 - Jun 7 with 1394 views | ItchySphincter |
| Takeover Confirmed on 15:51 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
In terms of stopping the 79% selling their shares? Not a lot. |
Just to be clear I'm not advocating stopping anyone selling their shares. At the end of the day it's business and their entitled to fair market value. It's just difficult to understand what the trust are doing to achieve their own goals at the moment. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:39 - Jun 7 with 1381 views | monmouth |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:09 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
Entirely my view etc etc but the areas that concern me relate to dilution, future debt levels and key (non footballing) appointments. Guarantees in these areas are IMO key. A second director probably touches all three but more important is the SHA.
To be honest, I'll be shamelessly relying on the advice of our legal types on such matters though. |
Ta |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:44 - Jun 7 with 1359 views | costalotta |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:34 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
I'm just one of many. I doubt my views hold sway. I haven't made up my mind what my own view yet ... it's a difficult balance between retaining someone who knows how to keep us in this division or whether all bridges have been burnt. Then, if a majority shareholder says they want him to stay, whose opinion holds sway? |
Indeed, as we all are but i'm sure your views are well regarded.
Good luck in making up your mind as i know it is a tricky one for the reasons already stated in the post so far. From where I am it looks to me as if bridges have been set on fire and are burning quite rapidly. This fire was not started by the Trust but by one or two of the board, at least it appears that way. It has since the story broke been perpetuated by the media, but they've obviously been fed a line and told to stay in line. The Trust doesn't have to stay in line, in fact I would have thought that to be considered a Trust it shouldn't even contemplate staying in line.
15 years or so ago we (Swansea) got rid of Petty, No swans Fan will forget this, so history tells me/us that our opinions do hold sway. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:16 - Jun 7 with 1289 views | DafyddHuw |
| Takeover Confirmed on 15:28 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
It hints at a lot. It confirms nothing.
Let's flip the argument. They were told by HJ to keep quiet until as late as possible. So, who is the issue there ... the Americans or HJ? Do you write off the Americans for listening to bad advice? |
They were told by HJ to keep quiet until as late as possible. Another story is that HJ was told by them to keep it quiet as long as possible.
OK, we're well into the close season now. How much of a warchest is available fo rnew signings? I know nothing's come out in public.
Have the yanks/board told the Trust? After all they own 1/5 of the club. If not why not? And if the Trust haven't been told, have they asked the yanks? If not why not?
I'd like to know, I'm sure thousands of other fans would like to know. Wouldn't the Trust like to know? Or would that be considered as being too aggresive?
Is there a reason for the secrecy about this? If the yanks are really intent on investing in the club, this would be a good measure of their word. But the silence is deafening. |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:20 - Jun 7 with 1280 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:16 - Jun 7 by DafyddHuw |
They were told by HJ to keep quiet until as late as possible. Another story is that HJ was told by them to keep it quiet as long as possible.
OK, we're well into the close season now. How much of a warchest is available fo rnew signings? I know nothing's come out in public.
Have the yanks/board told the Trust? After all they own 1/5 of the club. If not why not? And if the Trust haven't been told, have they asked the yanks? If not why not?
I'd like to know, I'm sure thousands of other fans would like to know. Wouldn't the Trust like to know? Or would that be considered as being too aggresive?
Is there a reason for the secrecy about this? If the yanks are really intent on investing in the club, this would be a good measure of their word. But the silence is deafening. |
There's only so many times we can say there is zero evidence of any financial investment in the club.
However, for the interests of clarity, there is no evidence of any financial investment in the club. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:30 - Jun 7 with 1259 views | tomdickharry |
The Yanks do not own the club until they have been approved by the Premier League until that time its status quo. Once all the share transactions are complete the resultant holdings will be registered at Companies House and hopefully on the Club website for the world to see who owns the club.
Expect Messrs Levien and Kaplan to issue a policy statement immediately this has been achieved. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:31 - Jun 7 with 1256 views | max936 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:20 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
There's only so many times we can say there is zero evidence of any financial investment in the club.
However, for the interests of clarity, there is no evidence of any financial investment in the club. |
I doubt there'll be anything different, to the players we've apparently been linked to Bruno, Hoilet etc, Bony looks as if he could be jetting out to Turkey to sign for Besiktas, we surely could match the wages they're likely to offer him. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:42 - Jun 7 with 1238 views | DafyddHuw |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:20 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
There's only so many times we can say there is zero evidence of any financial investment in the club.
However, for the interests of clarity, there is no evidence of any financial investment in the club. |
I know. What really worries me is that the Trust isn't bothered by the lack of evidence. To the extent that the Trust is still saying "Let's wait and see if these are good guys or not".
How many pointers does the Trust need? | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:42 - Jun 7 with 1239 views | Watchman |
| Takeover Confirmed on 16:44 - Jun 7 by costalotta |
Indeed, as we all are but i'm sure your views are well regarded.
Good luck in making up your mind as i know it is a tricky one for the reasons already stated in the post so far. From where I am it looks to me as if bridges have been set on fire and are burning quite rapidly. This fire was not started by the Trust but by one or two of the board, at least it appears that way. It has since the story broke been perpetuated by the media, but they've obviously been fed a line and told to stay in line. The Trust doesn't have to stay in line, in fact I would have thought that to be considered a Trust it shouldn't even contemplate staying in line.
15 years or so ago we (Swansea) got rid of Petty, No swans Fan will forget this, so history tells me/us that our opinions do hold sway. |
bang on the Trust should encourage all Trust members to draw up questions and demands from the new owners. We are the 2nd largest shareholdr now therefore views need to be heard
our discussions should be held with our largest shareholders not with those with nominal holdings
old shareholders are placements now they should have no influence on club policy they are employees
ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS SHOULD BE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN ACCEPTING BOTH DIVIDEND AND SALARY FROM THE CLUB |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:45 - Jun 7 with 1232 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:20 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
There's only so many times we can say there is zero evidence of any financial investment in the club.
However, for the interests of clarity, there is no evidence of any financial investment in the club. |
Ux - thank You for the time you've taken to answer questions today - I appreciate it as I'm sure everyone else does as well. I don't want to repeat discussions but just wanted to make one point.
You said that the Trust wasn't approached to sell shares. Please bear in mind that the Trust will almost certainly be able to force purchase if it wants to. One of three ways this can happen. One is that there may be a right in the shareholders agreement to sell at the same deal as others (note that I have no idea whether this is in place - it may not be, but is very common). Second which I have mentioned several times, is that there are minority protection rights where legal action can be taken when a minority shareholder has been unfairly treated by the majority. Now there could be a case for saying there's no one majority shareholder but they have acted in concert to unfairly treat the Trust (the legislation talks from memory about unfair prejudice). The prejudice bit comes out of two things - one is deliberately excluding the Trust from the deal and also therefore preventing the Trust from selling their shares and realising value on them (which everyone else has been able to do). You are simply not allowed to do that and the Trust can therefore force purchase. Finally again as I have mentioned before there are also provisions about a limited company which has been set up and run as a quasi partnership (no overall majority holder, all parties treated equally, everyone involved in running the company, no intention that any one holder can ever become a majority etc etc). Again, if one 'partner' is then treated with prejudice by the others acting in concert against them you can take action.
So while it is correct to say that the Trust haven't been approached to sell, that doesn't remove the ability of the Trust to sell to the same people, at the same price. Ironically the actions of the others in excluding the Trust from discussions quite deliberately, makes such an action pretty easy.
Not saying the Trust should do it by the way, but it's not a bad threat. If the new owners won't play ball, then a threat of forcing them to fork out another £21m (because if they have bought out any in full which seems to be the case you could argue they have to buy the Trust out in full) may not be very appealing for them. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:51 - Jun 7 with 1211 views | Watchman |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:42 - Jun 7 by DafyddHuw |
I know. What really worries me is that the Trust isn't bothered by the lack of evidence. To the extent that the Trust is still saying "Let's wait and see if these are good guys or not".
How many pointers does the Trust need? |
THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING AS OF YET
the plan should be to work out what it does from here! The new owners are the ones that have to help build the working relationship between old shareholders and the Trust
The trust should also discuss the working relationship the SD has with the club and other Directors
As I have said before in this thread the Trust should ask its members to submit in private thoughts opinions demands etc and bring these to the table
They shoukld certainly demand inclusion in ALL club correspondence as of the time everything is ratified. For the 2nd largest SH not to be included now is not acceptable
NEW RULES UNDR WHIC H WE PLAY | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:51 - Jun 7 with 1209 views | DafyddHuw |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:45 - Jun 7 by londonlisa2001 |
Ux - thank You for the time you've taken to answer questions today - I appreciate it as I'm sure everyone else does as well. I don't want to repeat discussions but just wanted to make one point.
You said that the Trust wasn't approached to sell shares. Please bear in mind that the Trust will almost certainly be able to force purchase if it wants to. One of three ways this can happen. One is that there may be a right in the shareholders agreement to sell at the same deal as others (note that I have no idea whether this is in place - it may not be, but is very common). Second which I have mentioned several times, is that there are minority protection rights where legal action can be taken when a minority shareholder has been unfairly treated by the majority. Now there could be a case for saying there's no one majority shareholder but they have acted in concert to unfairly treat the Trust (the legislation talks from memory about unfair prejudice). The prejudice bit comes out of two things - one is deliberately excluding the Trust from the deal and also therefore preventing the Trust from selling their shares and realising value on them (which everyone else has been able to do). You are simply not allowed to do that and the Trust can therefore force purchase. Finally again as I have mentioned before there are also provisions about a limited company which has been set up and run as a quasi partnership (no overall majority holder, all parties treated equally, everyone involved in running the company, no intention that any one holder can ever become a majority etc etc). Again, if one 'partner' is then treated with prejudice by the others acting in concert against them you can take action.
So while it is correct to say that the Trust haven't been approached to sell, that doesn't remove the ability of the Trust to sell to the same people, at the same price. Ironically the actions of the others in excluding the Trust from discussions quite deliberately, makes such an action pretty easy.
Not saying the Trust should do it by the way, but it's not a bad threat. If the new owners won't play ball, then a threat of forcing them to fork out another £21m (because if they have bought out any in full which seems to be the case you could argue they have to buy the Trust out in full) may not be very appealing for them. |
Yes, I'd like to echo my thanks to Ux for taking all the shit this afternoon (a lot from me - sorry Ux, not personnal, just very frustrated).
What I really don't understand is the Trust's attitude of rolling over and having it's belly rubbed by the investors when they've shat on us from a great height. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 17:56]
| | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:52 - Jun 7 with 1208 views | costalotta |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:45 - Jun 7 by londonlisa2001 |
Ux - thank You for the time you've taken to answer questions today - I appreciate it as I'm sure everyone else does as well. I don't want to repeat discussions but just wanted to make one point.
You said that the Trust wasn't approached to sell shares. Please bear in mind that the Trust will almost certainly be able to force purchase if it wants to. One of three ways this can happen. One is that there may be a right in the shareholders agreement to sell at the same deal as others (note that I have no idea whether this is in place - it may not be, but is very common). Second which I have mentioned several times, is that there are minority protection rights where legal action can be taken when a minority shareholder has been unfairly treated by the majority. Now there could be a case for saying there's no one majority shareholder but they have acted in concert to unfairly treat the Trust (the legislation talks from memory about unfair prejudice). The prejudice bit comes out of two things - one is deliberately excluding the Trust from the deal and also therefore preventing the Trust from selling their shares and realising value on them (which everyone else has been able to do). You are simply not allowed to do that and the Trust can therefore force purchase. Finally again as I have mentioned before there are also provisions about a limited company which has been set up and run as a quasi partnership (no overall majority holder, all parties treated equally, everyone involved in running the company, no intention that any one holder can ever become a majority etc etc). Again, if one 'partner' is then treated with prejudice by the others acting in concert against them you can take action.
So while it is correct to say that the Trust haven't been approached to sell, that doesn't remove the ability of the Trust to sell to the same people, at the same price. Ironically the actions of the others in excluding the Trust from discussions quite deliberately, makes such an action pretty easy.
Not saying the Trust should do it by the way, but it's not a bad threat. If the new owners won't play ball, then a threat of forcing them to fork out another £21m (because if they have bought out any in full which seems to be the case you could argue they have to buy the Trust out in full) may not be very appealing for them. |
What I want to know now Lisa is why LondonLisa2001 is not on the Trust Board ?
Or, what would it take to get her onto the board?
PS, I'd like to concur with Lisa sentiments regarding UX taking the time to answer the questions this afternoon. Thank you. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 17:55]
| | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 18:09 - Jun 7 with 1151 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:52 - Jun 7 by costalotta |
What I want to know now Lisa is why LondonLisa2001 is not on the Trust Board ?
Or, what would it take to get her onto the board?
PS, I'd like to concur with Lisa sentiments regarding UX taking the time to answer the questions this afternoon. Thank you. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 17:55]
|
Ha. Unfortunately I live and work in a rather inconvenient place for being able to devote the time to it that it deserves.
Also, I honestly believe that there are good people already involved - many of the points I've made have I'm sure already been considered, may be under consideration or may have been dismissed as unworkable. I'm in the fortunate position of being able to air stuff publically unlike the others.
My particular background is in this sort of stuff - buying and selling companies, restructuring and corporate matters and so on. To be perfectly honest, I would hope that that specialism is only needed once in a lifetime as far as our club is concerned, and I may well be of little use in anything else ! Too adversarial as well I imagine and certainly p*** too many people off given the remarks being made about me even as we speak on another thread :-)
As we all are, only too happy to help / interfere / irritate (depending on viewpoint) whenever the Trust need it! | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 18:10 - Jun 7 with 1150 views | Landore_Jack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:51 - Jun 7 by DafyddHuw |
Yes, I'd like to echo my thanks to Ux for taking all the shit this afternoon (a lot from me - sorry Ux, not personnal, just very frustrated).
What I really don't understand is the Trust's attitude of rolling over and having it's belly rubbed by the investors when they've shat on us from a great height. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 17:56]
|
Your comment about the Trust is very unfair. No need for that.
Lets not self destruct now. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 18:13]
|  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 18:19 - Jun 7 with 1120 views | tomdickharry |
Why can't we take a step backwards until Levien and Kaplan own the club and have issued a policy statement.
In the meantime London Lisa ,Ux and others should be complemented on their fantastic contribution to this thread in what is an extremely complex situation,which hopefully will be soon resolved for the ultimate benefit of Swansea City and we can look forward to a bright future. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 18:41 - Jun 7 with 1078 views | max936 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 18:19 - Jun 7 by tomdickharry |
Why can't we take a step backwards until Levien and Kaplan own the club and have issued a policy statement.
In the meantime London Lisa ,Ux and others should be complemented on their fantastic contribution to this thread in what is an extremely complex situation,which hopefully will be soon resolved for the ultimate benefit of Swansea City and we can look forward to a bright future. |
You prophesising optimism, doesn't make me feel optimistic my friend, I just got the feeling that we're on the precipice of an incoming shit storm, although I'm hoping that when I usually feel this way it usually doesn't turn out that bad.  | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 18:43 - Jun 7 with 1072 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 17:45 - Jun 7 by londonlisa2001 |
Ux - thank You for the time you've taken to answer questions today - I appreciate it as I'm sure everyone else does as well. I don't want to repeat discussions but just wanted to make one point.
You said that the Trust wasn't approached to sell shares. Please bear in mind that the Trust will almost certainly be able to force purchase if it wants to. One of three ways this can happen. One is that there may be a right in the shareholders agreement to sell at the same deal as others (note that I have no idea whether this is in place - it may not be, but is very common). Second which I have mentioned several times, is that there are minority protection rights where legal action can be taken when a minority shareholder has been unfairly treated by the majority. Now there could be a case for saying there's no one majority shareholder but they have acted in concert to unfairly treat the Trust (the legislation talks from memory about unfair prejudice). The prejudice bit comes out of two things - one is deliberately excluding the Trust from the deal and also therefore preventing the Trust from selling their shares and realising value on them (which everyone else has been able to do). You are simply not allowed to do that and the Trust can therefore force purchase. Finally again as I have mentioned before there are also provisions about a limited company which has been set up and run as a quasi partnership (no overall majority holder, all parties treated equally, everyone involved in running the company, no intention that any one holder can ever become a majority etc etc). Again, if one 'partner' is then treated with prejudice by the others acting in concert against them you can take action.
So while it is correct to say that the Trust haven't been approached to sell, that doesn't remove the ability of the Trust to sell to the same people, at the same price. Ironically the actions of the others in excluding the Trust from discussions quite deliberately, makes such an action pretty easy.
Not saying the Trust should do it by the way, but it's not a bad threat. If the new owners won't play ball, then a threat of forcing them to fork out another £21m (because if they have bought out any in full which seems to be the case you could argue they have to buy the Trust out in full) may not be very appealing for them. |
No thanks necessary .. we try to keep the fans involved as best we can.
Take the point on minority protections and it's something I've mentioned previously too especially when people say the trust could just be diluted out of existence without a penny. As you say, whether that's desirable is the question ... personally I want to see what they have to say first.
Oh and Lisa on the Trust board gets my vote  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
