| Takeover Confirmed on 18:47 - Jun 7 with 1589 views | Uxbridge |
| 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]
|
No thanks necessary but ta.
I don't recognise your reality regarding the Trust though. Powder may have been kept relatively dry for now (although whether the buyers and sellers feel the same about the information we've shared is another question) but IMO it's all about the negotiations now. |  |
|  |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:04 - Jun 7 with 1550 views | Watchman |
| Takeover Confirmed on 18:47 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
No thanks necessary but ta.
I don't recognise your reality regarding the Trust though. Powder may have been kept relatively dry for now (although whether the buyers and sellers feel the same about the information we've shared is another question) but IMO it's all about the negotiations now. |
if the buyers and sellers have a problem then they should say so and act in an adult manner. We have a far larger constituency than either and as the sellers haveq made a big play of the Trust in selling the club they can just shut their faces and get on with life |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:16 - Jun 7 with 1514 views | jackonicko |
There are lots of good points in this thread. Lisa, to the points you raise they have all been considered, I promise.
Most of the commentary in the last few pages have been about minority protections for being unfairly prejudiced. I know you know this Lisa, but a couple of things to remember: this is both a weapon of last resort and an imprecise weapon. More a bazooka than a surgical strike.
Without stating what might seem obvious, to get redress you need to demonstrate to a court that you have been prejudiced. And that it was unfair. Until we know more facts, any argument as to whether prejudice or unfair prejudice at that has occurred cannot be determined.
Even If you can establish, then there are actually few remedies available. Largely all a court will do is insist on the majority shareholder buying out your stake at fair value. So, before you go down that route, you have to be prepared to be "forced" to sell at the end of it if you prove your case.
So, that raises the question of do we actually want to be bought out? I see all the arguments about cashing out, taking £20m and save it for a rainy day. That is one option. Maybe it's the best one. But I don't know how people can be so clear cut as that right now. The other option is to work with the new shareholders and find a constructive way of working together for the betterment of the football club. Working in collaboration with the new owners *might* be the best possible outcome. It really is too early to say right now.
The trust has to balance some warm words (but nothing more substantial) from the various meetings to date with the consortium with the conduct of the transaction. However, the consortium have necessarily been engrossed in negotiations with the 79% of shareholders in the club who want to sell part or all of their shares. Every single shareholder other than the Trust. If that 79% want to do that, regardless of any consideration of who is behind the Delaware-incorporated LLC, then there is nothing that can be done about that. Im personally surprised for people with 'best interest' of the club at heart, but so be it. The Trust is now starting to get details of what the final make up of the deal is, but this will be confirmed in due course.
One of the advantages of the trust is that it can never be motivated by personal investments. The other 79% had to consider what the impact of a sale will do for them and their personal circumstances. That is natural. The trust does not. The trust does not need to realise 100x its investment unless it is in the best interest of the football club.
Personally, I've had the benefit and advantage of meeting both Americans 1.0 and 2.0 so I have a basis for comparison. These guys are infinitely more credible, more balanced about their plans, clearly have sporting club experience, even if not in the UK, have high aspirations but are measured in how they want to achieve it. It's fair to say that the upside of Americans 2.0 so far outweighs the downsides of Americans 1.0 based on my, admittedly limited, interactions to date.
What the Trust is doing now is not passive, but is keeping its options open. Mistakes made in haste, are repented at leisure. If we were to run straight to court for redress - which is what some seem to be suggesting (not suggesting you Lisa), any future constructive working relationship is blown out of the water, and what happens if we lose the case and we don't get that particular redress? Then we really are in the worst of all possible worlds.
And we have instantly lost what might be the best possible option of working constructively with the new consortium to improve all the things we wish were better, but couldn't achieve for whatever reason with the old shareholders. The Trust maintaining a strong voice in the boardroom, coupled with the fresh experience, expertise and perspective of an outsider (and potentially investment) might be the best outcome.
The bazooka also remains an option. If you recall earlier in the thread, it is *the* main reason why we as a Trust never countenanced a part sale. Counsel advice over a year ago was very clear that a part sale would make the use of the very powers that everyone is urging the trust to think about much more difficult.
But it is absolutely an option of last resort in my view, but more importantly in the view of independent legal counsel. Some of our statements to date have also been drafted with care when thinking about those options, even if some people found some of the repetition quite annoying.
This is an emotional time. But it's a time for cool heads. |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:24 - Jun 7 with 1488 views | waynekerr55 |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:16 - Jun 7 by jackonicko |
There are lots of good points in this thread. Lisa, to the points you raise they have all been considered, I promise.
Most of the commentary in the last few pages have been about minority protections for being unfairly prejudiced. I know you know this Lisa, but a couple of things to remember: this is both a weapon of last resort and an imprecise weapon. More a bazooka than a surgical strike.
Without stating what might seem obvious, to get redress you need to demonstrate to a court that you have been prejudiced. And that it was unfair. Until we know more facts, any argument as to whether prejudice or unfair prejudice at that has occurred cannot be determined.
Even If you can establish, then there are actually few remedies available. Largely all a court will do is insist on the majority shareholder buying out your stake at fair value. So, before you go down that route, you have to be prepared to be "forced" to sell at the end of it if you prove your case.
So, that raises the question of do we actually want to be bought out? I see all the arguments about cashing out, taking £20m and save it for a rainy day. That is one option. Maybe it's the best one. But I don't know how people can be so clear cut as that right now. The other option is to work with the new shareholders and find a constructive way of working together for the betterment of the football club. Working in collaboration with the new owners *might* be the best possible outcome. It really is too early to say right now.
The trust has to balance some warm words (but nothing more substantial) from the various meetings to date with the consortium with the conduct of the transaction. However, the consortium have necessarily been engrossed in negotiations with the 79% of shareholders in the club who want to sell part or all of their shares. Every single shareholder other than the Trust. If that 79% want to do that, regardless of any consideration of who is behind the Delaware-incorporated LLC, then there is nothing that can be done about that. Im personally surprised for people with 'best interest' of the club at heart, but so be it. The Trust is now starting to get details of what the final make up of the deal is, but this will be confirmed in due course.
One of the advantages of the trust is that it can never be motivated by personal investments. The other 79% had to consider what the impact of a sale will do for them and their personal circumstances. That is natural. The trust does not. The trust does not need to realise 100x its investment unless it is in the best interest of the football club.
Personally, I've had the benefit and advantage of meeting both Americans 1.0 and 2.0 so I have a basis for comparison. These guys are infinitely more credible, more balanced about their plans, clearly have sporting club experience, even if not in the UK, have high aspirations but are measured in how they want to achieve it. It's fair to say that the upside of Americans 2.0 so far outweighs the downsides of Americans 1.0 based on my, admittedly limited, interactions to date.
What the Trust is doing now is not passive, but is keeping its options open. Mistakes made in haste, are repented at leisure. If we were to run straight to court for redress - which is what some seem to be suggesting (not suggesting you Lisa), any future constructive working relationship is blown out of the water, and what happens if we lose the case and we don't get that particular redress? Then we really are in the worst of all possible worlds.
And we have instantly lost what might be the best possible option of working constructively with the new consortium to improve all the things we wish were better, but couldn't achieve for whatever reason with the old shareholders. The Trust maintaining a strong voice in the boardroom, coupled with the fresh experience, expertise and perspective of an outsider (and potentially investment) might be the best outcome.
The bazooka also remains an option. If you recall earlier in the thread, it is *the* main reason why we as a Trust never countenanced a part sale. Counsel advice over a year ago was very clear that a part sale would make the use of the very powers that everyone is urging the trust to think about much more difficult.
But it is absolutely an option of last resort in my view, but more importantly in the view of independent legal counsel. Some of our statements to date have also been drafted with care when thinking about those options, even if some people found some of the repetition quite annoying.
This is an emotional time. But it's a time for cool heads. |
Great post mate. Interesting to see the real facts when the washing is aired so to speak |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:25 - Jun 7 with 1488 views | 3swan |
Excellent questions and answers.
I had hoped, and did believe, that the Trust did have options and didn't throw everything into the pot without holding something back.
Let's hope that the new majority owners recognize this - as they are professional business people |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:38 - Jun 7 with 1445 views | londonlisa2001 |
Jacko - great post and good points well made - thanks.
Glad you are considering and aware of the options discussed (as I said in a later post I was sure you would be).
Completely agree re last resort and 'bazooka' analogy - it will be good news if never needed - but the threat of these things sometimes helps people decide to be more amenable (a la Chelsea this afternoon)!
I personally don't think it'd be hard to get redress given the behaviour (which as I said helps the Trust ironically) but completely agree that it would be a full sale at that point. As you say, until the Trust knows whether that would be good or not then impossible to say whether cashing in is right. Handy to have the fall back though if necessary.
On the wider point re good or bad I'd just say this (which repeats a bit what I've said before but so be it). I would have loved the status quo, but the behaviour of the other shareholders over the past 6 or 12 months has made that impossible. We don't have the luxury of a 'for the fans by the fans' situation any more. We don't yet know whether these people will be trustworthy and behave well towards the Trust. Which is a step forward at least.
Glad to hear that they seem a step forward by the way from the last lot. I'll refrain from the obvious question of how you know they're not just a front for the last lot of course ;-)
I don't actually believe they are by the way before anyone starts !! | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:39 - Jun 7 with 1442 views | longlostjack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:16 - Jun 7 by jackonicko |
There are lots of good points in this thread. Lisa, to the points you raise they have all been considered, I promise.
Most of the commentary in the last few pages have been about minority protections for being unfairly prejudiced. I know you know this Lisa, but a couple of things to remember: this is both a weapon of last resort and an imprecise weapon. More a bazooka than a surgical strike.
Without stating what might seem obvious, to get redress you need to demonstrate to a court that you have been prejudiced. And that it was unfair. Until we know more facts, any argument as to whether prejudice or unfair prejudice at that has occurred cannot be determined.
Even If you can establish, then there are actually few remedies available. Largely all a court will do is insist on the majority shareholder buying out your stake at fair value. So, before you go down that route, you have to be prepared to be "forced" to sell at the end of it if you prove your case.
So, that raises the question of do we actually want to be bought out? I see all the arguments about cashing out, taking £20m and save it for a rainy day. That is one option. Maybe it's the best one. But I don't know how people can be so clear cut as that right now. The other option is to work with the new shareholders and find a constructive way of working together for the betterment of the football club. Working in collaboration with the new owners *might* be the best possible outcome. It really is too early to say right now.
The trust has to balance some warm words (but nothing more substantial) from the various meetings to date with the consortium with the conduct of the transaction. However, the consortium have necessarily been engrossed in negotiations with the 79% of shareholders in the club who want to sell part or all of their shares. Every single shareholder other than the Trust. If that 79% want to do that, regardless of any consideration of who is behind the Delaware-incorporated LLC, then there is nothing that can be done about that. Im personally surprised for people with 'best interest' of the club at heart, but so be it. The Trust is now starting to get details of what the final make up of the deal is, but this will be confirmed in due course.
One of the advantages of the trust is that it can never be motivated by personal investments. The other 79% had to consider what the impact of a sale will do for them and their personal circumstances. That is natural. The trust does not. The trust does not need to realise 100x its investment unless it is in the best interest of the football club.
Personally, I've had the benefit and advantage of meeting both Americans 1.0 and 2.0 so I have a basis for comparison. These guys are infinitely more credible, more balanced about their plans, clearly have sporting club experience, even if not in the UK, have high aspirations but are measured in how they want to achieve it. It's fair to say that the upside of Americans 2.0 so far outweighs the downsides of Americans 1.0 based on my, admittedly limited, interactions to date.
What the Trust is doing now is not passive, but is keeping its options open. Mistakes made in haste, are repented at leisure. If we were to run straight to court for redress - which is what some seem to be suggesting (not suggesting you Lisa), any future constructive working relationship is blown out of the water, and what happens if we lose the case and we don't get that particular redress? Then we really are in the worst of all possible worlds.
And we have instantly lost what might be the best possible option of working constructively with the new consortium to improve all the things we wish were better, but couldn't achieve for whatever reason with the old shareholders. The Trust maintaining a strong voice in the boardroom, coupled with the fresh experience, expertise and perspective of an outsider (and potentially investment) might be the best outcome.
The bazooka also remains an option. If you recall earlier in the thread, it is *the* main reason why we as a Trust never countenanced a part sale. Counsel advice over a year ago was very clear that a part sale would make the use of the very powers that everyone is urging the trust to think about much more difficult.
But it is absolutely an option of last resort in my view, but more importantly in the view of independent legal counsel. Some of our statements to date have also been drafted with care when thinking about those options, even if some people found some of the repetition quite annoying.
This is an emotional time. But it's a time for cool heads. |
Excellent post. Keep up the good work. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:40 - Jun 7 with 1438 views | Phil_S |
It is unfair to accuse the trust of sitting around having belly tickles (mine is too big to be tickled by one person anyway!) however we don't dodge questions so I will answer
It's worth remembering that the first dialogue we had with the new owners was the morning of the Chelsea game. We got no evidence of the investment then and we haven't had any since. We have been told that there is but without being able to see it it's impossible (and wrong) to say one way or the other
The other shareholders have been looking to sell shares for almost two years and have finally it seems succeeded. Each of them are adamant it's a good deal for the club but none of them can provide the evidence of investment
We continue to ask and have had a few dialogues since the first meeting and will continue to push for what is right on the deal for the trust and the football club
Like Uxbridge the second director isn't most important to me but I do think we should get it and the rest is down now to the negotiation
We have acted professionally here in the whole matter (some would argue it is the most professional of all the original shareholders) and stated where we are on a frequent basis
The fact is that we always said we could not prevent the deal happening and maybe some of the excellent questions raised here could be asked of some of the sellers and maybe they will be more open with their answers
The fact remains for me the trust was excluded from the discussions but nobody has really given a solid reason why...people will draw their own conclusions
Will we talk to our members/fans? The answer is yes but I need to get back off holiday first and we can agree dates |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Takeover Confirmed on 21:55 - Jun 7 with 1282 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 19:16 - Jun 7 by jackonicko |
There are lots of good points in this thread. Lisa, to the points you raise they have all been considered, I promise.
Most of the commentary in the last few pages have been about minority protections for being unfairly prejudiced. I know you know this Lisa, but a couple of things to remember: this is both a weapon of last resort and an imprecise weapon. More a bazooka than a surgical strike.
Without stating what might seem obvious, to get redress you need to demonstrate to a court that you have been prejudiced. And that it was unfair. Until we know more facts, any argument as to whether prejudice or unfair prejudice at that has occurred cannot be determined.
Even If you can establish, then there are actually few remedies available. Largely all a court will do is insist on the majority shareholder buying out your stake at fair value. So, before you go down that route, you have to be prepared to be "forced" to sell at the end of it if you prove your case.
So, that raises the question of do we actually want to be bought out? I see all the arguments about cashing out, taking £20m and save it for a rainy day. That is one option. Maybe it's the best one. But I don't know how people can be so clear cut as that right now. The other option is to work with the new shareholders and find a constructive way of working together for the betterment of the football club. Working in collaboration with the new owners *might* be the best possible outcome. It really is too early to say right now.
The trust has to balance some warm words (but nothing more substantial) from the various meetings to date with the consortium with the conduct of the transaction. However, the consortium have necessarily been engrossed in negotiations with the 79% of shareholders in the club who want to sell part or all of their shares. Every single shareholder other than the Trust. If that 79% want to do that, regardless of any consideration of who is behind the Delaware-incorporated LLC, then there is nothing that can be done about that. Im personally surprised for people with 'best interest' of the club at heart, but so be it. The Trust is now starting to get details of what the final make up of the deal is, but this will be confirmed in due course.
One of the advantages of the trust is that it can never be motivated by personal investments. The other 79% had to consider what the impact of a sale will do for them and their personal circumstances. That is natural. The trust does not. The trust does not need to realise 100x its investment unless it is in the best interest of the football club.
Personally, I've had the benefit and advantage of meeting both Americans 1.0 and 2.0 so I have a basis for comparison. These guys are infinitely more credible, more balanced about their plans, clearly have sporting club experience, even if not in the UK, have high aspirations but are measured in how they want to achieve it. It's fair to say that the upside of Americans 2.0 so far outweighs the downsides of Americans 1.0 based on my, admittedly limited, interactions to date.
What the Trust is doing now is not passive, but is keeping its options open. Mistakes made in haste, are repented at leisure. If we were to run straight to court for redress - which is what some seem to be suggesting (not suggesting you Lisa), any future constructive working relationship is blown out of the water, and what happens if we lose the case and we don't get that particular redress? Then we really are in the worst of all possible worlds.
And we have instantly lost what might be the best possible option of working constructively with the new consortium to improve all the things we wish were better, but couldn't achieve for whatever reason with the old shareholders. The Trust maintaining a strong voice in the boardroom, coupled with the fresh experience, expertise and perspective of an outsider (and potentially investment) might be the best outcome.
The bazooka also remains an option. If you recall earlier in the thread, it is *the* main reason why we as a Trust never countenanced a part sale. Counsel advice over a year ago was very clear that a part sale would make the use of the very powers that everyone is urging the trust to think about much more difficult.
But it is absolutely an option of last resort in my view, but more importantly in the view of independent legal counsel. Some of our statements to date have also been drafted with care when thinking about those options, even if some people found some of the repetition quite annoying.
This is an emotional time. But it's a time for cool heads. |
Jackonicko
As others have said thank you for such a good post.
It explains why the Trust is being so conciliatory as Yanks 2.0 seem very professional and capable - so do not want to upset potential working relationship with them in the future.
However the fundamental question going forward is Trust 21% and the rest 79%.
The rest have ganged up on the Minority and the Minority is prejudiced.
This is the opportunity to take the Yanks to court and force them to buy out the Trust on the same terms as the other shareholders. It is now.
Otherwise the Yanks will have 79%. They will then take on debt to buy the stadium of council - so will have debt covenant rights as well. The Trust will not be able to stop the Yanks taking on debt with only 21% and does it really matter anyway. In that the Trust is only then fighting tactical short term battle of 'protecting the club''.
The Trusts long term objective is a professional football team in Swansea owned by the fans. Please think strategically. With a 25% chance of relegation each season - the season will come when become relegated - what then happens? If Trust has £20m in the bank will then put itself in position of fulfilling long term vision.
If Yanks 2.0 in meantime do take club forward - absolutely fantastic. The Trust still has £20m in the bank as the safety net though.
Take the opportunity now to force the Yanks to buy the Trust out on same terms as the other shareholders. Now is the time before it is too late. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:13 - Jun 7 with 1259 views | Landore_Jack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 21:55 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
Jackonicko
As others have said thank you for such a good post.
It explains why the Trust is being so conciliatory as Yanks 2.0 seem very professional and capable - so do not want to upset potential working relationship with them in the future.
However the fundamental question going forward is Trust 21% and the rest 79%.
The rest have ganged up on the Minority and the Minority is prejudiced.
This is the opportunity to take the Yanks to court and force them to buy out the Trust on the same terms as the other shareholders. It is now.
Otherwise the Yanks will have 79%. They will then take on debt to buy the stadium of council - so will have debt covenant rights as well. The Trust will not be able to stop the Yanks taking on debt with only 21% and does it really matter anyway. In that the Trust is only then fighting tactical short term battle of 'protecting the club''.
The Trusts long term objective is a professional football team in Swansea owned by the fans. Please think strategically. With a 25% chance of relegation each season - the season will come when become relegated - what then happens? If Trust has £20m in the bank will then put itself in position of fulfilling long term vision.
If Yanks 2.0 in meantime do take club forward - absolutely fantastic. The Trust still has £20m in the bank as the safety net though.
Take the opportunity now to force the Yanks to buy the Trust out on same terms as the other shareholders. Now is the time before it is too late. |
Respect your views but I am against the idea of selling shares. The trust was setup to protect the football club. It is best to be inside the circle than outside. Yes we would have 20M in the bank but you are relying on the current owners selling shares back to the Trust. The Yanks can decide who to sell too and the Trust may be priced out of the market by other interested parties.
The new owners may be fine to work with. The honest answer is that we do not know. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 22:16]
|  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:14 - Jun 7 with 1249 views | Nookiejack |
Can we also nail this point about the Trust having two directors on Board - that seems to be being discussed on various message boards.
So what?
At end of day Trust has 21% stake and the rest 79%.
The Trust can monitor all it likes with its 2 Directors at the Board meetings - but when it comes down to the crucial/critical decisions - Trust 21% the Rest 79%. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:17 - Jun 7 with 1235 views | Landore_Jack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:14 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
Can we also nail this point about the Trust having two directors on Board - that seems to be being discussed on various message boards.
So what?
At end of day Trust has 21% stake and the rest 79%.
The Trust can monitor all it likes with its 2 Directors at the Board meetings - but when it comes down to the crucial/critical decisions - Trust 21% the Rest 79%. |
Two voices is better than one. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:18 - Jun 7 with 1232 views | jackonicko |
The two posts above exactly describe the position. Two diametrically opposed views on what is the best course of action.
The only problem the trust has is it has to take a position and then be judged by everyone later with 20/20 hindsight!
I don't believe the trust is being conciliatory. I think it is just keeping all options open. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:22 - Jun 7 with 1220 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:13 - Jun 7 by Landore_Jack |
Respect your views but I am against the idea of selling shares. The trust was setup to protect the football club. It is best to be inside the circle than outside. Yes we would have 20M in the bank but you are relying on the current owners selling shares back to the Trust. The Yanks can decide who to sell too and the Trust may be priced out of the market by other interested parties.
The new owners may be fine to work with. The honest answer is that we do not know. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 22:16]
|
Sorry but the Trust has been unfairly prejudiced and in a court of law the probability is that court will find in favour of Trust and the prospective buyers will have to buy out Trust on same terms of other shareholders. (This actually will be quite an amusing time as then we will really find out what Terms the selling shareholders sold the club out on).
How could a court of law find against the Trust? It has totally been kept out of discussions - previously the second largest shareholder - now left with 21% stake verses the rest 79%. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 22:24 - Jun 7 with 1211 views | cymrojack |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 11:19]
|  |
| Gwynedd & Swansea - Veteran of Morriston Boys Club |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:36 - Jun 7 with 1174 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:22 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
Sorry but the Trust has been unfairly prejudiced and in a court of law the probability is that court will find in favour of Trust and the prospective buyers will have to buy out Trust on same terms of other shareholders. (This actually will be quite an amusing time as then we will really find out what Terms the selling shareholders sold the club out on).
How could a court of law find against the Trust? It has totally been kept out of discussions - previously the second largest shareholder - now left with 21% stake verses the rest 79%. |
.....and to add to this the Trust has circa £1m war chest for legal bills.
No one in the Trust is going to lose their house if in court the Trust loses.
However the other parties need to realise that the Trust with £1m does have the firepower to take them on in court.
Still find it quite incredible that the Trust has not been fully engaged on this as the second largest shareholder with a 21% stake. (This must expose the rest to bring unfairly prejudicial to the minority!!!!!). Again I repeat on balance of probabilities Trust must be in a very strong position (previously 2nd largest shareholder with 21% stake verses going forward 21% minority shareholder verses the rest 79%.
How could a court of law not find that the rest have ganged up against the Trust?
Always a chance I suppose - but with a £1m war chest a fight with taking on. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:46 - Jun 7 with 1143 views | Landore_Jack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:36 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
.....and to add to this the Trust has circa £1m war chest for legal bills.
No one in the Trust is going to lose their house if in court the Trust loses.
However the other parties need to realise that the Trust with £1m does have the firepower to take them on in court.
Still find it quite incredible that the Trust has not been fully engaged on this as the second largest shareholder with a 21% stake. (This must expose the rest to bring unfairly prejudicial to the minority!!!!!). Again I repeat on balance of probabilities Trust must be in a very strong position (previously 2nd largest shareholder with 21% stake verses going forward 21% minority shareholder verses the rest 79%.
How could a court of law not find that the rest have ganged up against the Trust?
Always a chance I suppose - but with a £1m war chest a fight with taking on. |
I understand your point but I do not believe that is the best option for the Trust.
Steve and Jason are purchasing around 60% not 79%.
Other shareholders will retain a reduced percentage. No figures have been made public yet. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 22:49]
| |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:50 - Jun 7 with 1129 views | jackonicko |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:36 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
.....and to add to this the Trust has circa £1m war chest for legal bills.
No one in the Trust is going to lose their house if in court the Trust loses.
However the other parties need to realise that the Trust with £1m does have the firepower to take them on in court.
Still find it quite incredible that the Trust has not been fully engaged on this as the second largest shareholder with a 21% stake. (This must expose the rest to bring unfairly prejudicial to the minority!!!!!). Again I repeat on balance of probabilities Trust must be in a very strong position (previously 2nd largest shareholder with 21% stake verses going forward 21% minority shareholder verses the rest 79%.
How could a court of law not find that the rest have ganged up against the Trust?
Always a chance I suppose - but with a £1m war chest a fight with taking on. |
Make your mind up, Nookie. You've gone from balance of probabilities that the trust would win, to can't lose, and then back to balance of probabilities in just three posts and 30 minutes. I thought it was hard keeping up with the selling shareholders over the last few weeks. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:51 - Jun 7 with 1125 views | Nookiejack |
Let's go to court and I truly believe we will then find out at court that the selling shareholders (Incl Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan) have assigned their voting rights away on their residual shares and/or given Yanks options on the residual shares).
Which means a total sell out with no protection given to the Trust.
Unfortunately for them will have to buy out Trust on same terms. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:57 - Jun 7 with 1110 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 22:46 - Jun 7 by Landore_Jack |
I understand your point but I do not believe that is the best option for the Trust.
Steve and Jason are purchasing around 60% not 79%.
Other shareholders will retain a reduced percentage. No figures have been made public yet. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 22:49]
|
Let's see Landore Jack
1. Will the voting rights on the residual shares be assigned to the Yanks - do that they have 79% voting power?
2. Will options be given to the Yanks to buy the residual shares - so at specified point in future they can increase their stake to 79%? | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:10 - Jun 7 with 1088 views | Joe_bradshaw |
If the buyers are forced into paying another £21M for the Trust's shares will that impact on any investment that they may possibly make into the playing squad and infrastructure of the club? |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:20 - Jun 7 with 1072 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:10 - Jun 7 by Joe_bradshaw |
If the buyers are forced into paying another £21M for the Trust's shares will that impact on any investment that they may possibly make into the playing squad and infrastructure of the club? |
That in my view is a tactical short term question and I again say so what?
Do we want to always be beholden to Venture Capitalists, rich individuals, or do we want to own the club ourselves?
Time is on our side hear. Bank the £20m.
I don't want "our club" as Huw Jenkins spouts at fans forums) to be the plaything or investment of rich individuals / corporate entities.
We really are Swansea City not feckin club owned by VCs. Let them have their time - we will have our time. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:29 - Jun 7 with 1034 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:20 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
That in my view is a tactical short term question and I again say so what?
Do we want to always be beholden to Venture Capitalists, rich individuals, or do we want to own the club ourselves?
Time is on our side hear. Bank the £20m.
I don't want "our club" as Huw Jenkins spouts at fans forums) to be the plaything or investment of rich individuals / corporate entities.
We really are Swansea City not feckin club owned by VCs. Let them have their time - we will have our time. |
I tend to agree with your sentiments and posted that as I would expect it to be a publicity stance that they would use.
I can't agree that we are not owned by VCs though. When the Is are dotted and the Ts are crossed shortly we may well be owned by VCs. Unfortunately we haven't a clue who we will really be owned by at this point. 79% owned that is. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:36 - Jun 7 with 1014 views | skippyjack |
F*cking hell.. the last few pages are full of absolute bollocks.. I find it all funny.. a few well written paragraphs.. but the points being raised are pointless.. it's like building a Ferrari without a f*cking engine..
The new owners have not made their plans public.. until they do.. shut the f*ck up mun.. I'm reading paragraphs and paragraphs of 'inconsequential' gibberish.. I'm just baffled that lecturers deemed you all skilled.. dear.. dear.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 23:39 - Jun 7 with 1008 views | skippyjack |
It makes it worse.. when you all tap each other on the back.. without doing anything.. you remind me of politicians.. talk absolute nonsense. | |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
