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.
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 23:06 - Dec 7 by Uxbridge
Probably not, but carping on the sidelines is easy. Believe it or not, the people on the Trust are taking the actions they think are best, and unconstructive comments get a bit old.
I think we all do Ux. Speaking for myself I wouldn't expect anything less.
Not having a go.... Something just doesn't seem right from where I am sitting and hasn't for a long time. I hope I am wrong but I wonder if you all woke up too late and didn't see any of this coming! None of it, and that's the bit I think the fans are a bit peeved with in the first place.
1
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:22 - Dec 8 with 1544 views
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 23:21 - Dec 7 by Uxbridge
I'm entitled to my view too, which was I thought your comment was a bit snarky.
The Trust doesn't hire the managers, or sign the players. Never has, never was supposed to. I'd apologise for having the temerity for posting my view on what the club needs to do, but Im not particularly arsed. Glad you've paid your tenner but it doesn't mean youre entitled to be an arse.
We know that, we also know what the main purpose and what it is tasked with too, do you? And how would you rate your (you and the boards) performance in this area, say over the last 3-5 year?
0
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:35 - Dec 8 with 1494 views
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:35 - Dec 8 by PapaLazarou
So it's true...?
Naaa.... They just announced his press conference at 1:45 today on Sky Sports News. Surely the timing is wrong anyway with three games in a space of week coming up.
Even when you know, you never know?
0
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:55 - Dec 8 with 1390 views
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:19 - Dec 8 by costalotta
I think we all do Ux. Speaking for myself I wouldn't expect anything less.
Not having a go.... Something just doesn't seem right from where I am sitting and hasn't for a long time. I hope I am wrong but I wonder if you all woke up too late and didn't see any of this coming! None of it, and that's the bit I think the fans are a bit peeved with in the first place.
This is the bit where I disagree with some of the comments. The Trust knew perfectly well, especially after the first American deal, that the old shareholders wanted to sell. After the first deal went away (no doubt partly because of the forensic focus the Trust took to the deal), the sellers decided to keep the Trust out of the loop for the second. A deliberate act.
I've seen a few comments saying that the Trust should have known. How? I've seen some comments saying that if the Trust had been more aggressive then they would have. How does that work exactly? Agitate more and that would somehow make the sellers be more ready to talk? It's an entirely counterproductive argument. And even then, would it have driven them away? This was an entirely different deal to the initial minority stake (progressing over 3 years to a majority) Moores and Noell were negotiating. To me it's clear, the sellers deliberately kept the Trust out of the discussions, deliberately kept discussions away from the club, because they didn't want anything interfering with the sale. That's the beginning, middle and end of it. Given the loose lips of the sellers in other regards, I'm amazed they managed it.
From that moment, the Trust has a number of unpalatable options. Come out against the sale, but frankly to what ends. Nobody could tell at that time if the Yanks were a good or a bad thing. The jury is still out to some degree (the criticisms of the team now are largely due to historic actions), although I think they've handled a lot of things very badly.
The Trust could still be a lot more aggressive to the Americans, and indeed could still do so, but it would have to be for a reason, and the consequences of doing that need to be understood also. Maybe it's been too passive on that front, in some ways I'd agree, but sounding off for no reason just means that even the paltry dialogue to date would have been more difficult.
The Trust could come out against Jenkins as Chairman, and might still well do. Lots of people talk about him cashing out, and that's the emotive line, but for me his biggest issues are surrounding the player and manager recruitment over recent years, the lack of proactive planning and the increasingly reactive actions (the last 3 manager appointments have been purely reactionary). The latest Tutumlu revelations don't reflect well on his influence on player recruitment back then either, which to many was a significant defence. While I think everyone knew that Tutumlu had an unhealthy influence at the time, to see it written in such degree was shocking.
I probably shouldn't post when I'm tired and cranky, it'd never end well. Mea culpa. However I've got no interest in being a pinata for all the ills of the club, and that's what the Trust has become for some. That rather grates when, for me, we are where we are because of the actions of other people.
I'd tend to disagree with the view that the previous shareholders misled the Yanks, steered them away from the Trust.
That would imply the Yanks failed to do due diligence, failed to investigate the "asset" they were buying into, would know zero about the Trust model whatsoever.
That in combination would be lot of naivety for some heavy hitters.
No, of course the previous shareholders didn't want the Trust involved. Nor did the Yanks from day one. It's easy for the Yanks to throw previous shareholders under the bus whilst acting like victims.
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 05:45 - Dec 8 by Kilkennyjack
Not being funny but thats a strange post. Yes i am a Trust member and i believe in it.
The Trust is our custodian of our club but it failed to safeguard our club. We are now in a place we all thought we would never see again. Not good enough.
If we did not know about the sale then simply why not ? Surely to be an effective custodian the Trust simply has to know such important things. Not good enough.
And now apparently clueless what do - so the Trust sits on its hands and appears to fiddle whilst Rome burns. Not good enough.
We desperately need our Trust now but accepting our fate so passively seems inconsistent with the gravity of the situation.
I am no expert but i would accept the americans approach renders the Trusts previous role redundant. I would sell up and bank my money for the coming rainy day. If the value of my shares has fallen due to the actions of others, i would seek appropriate compensation through the courts.
I would grab communication to fans as a priority and ensure every swans fan understood what this investment has really meant. Get a professional company on the case to get this right.
And decisions to weaken our squad through significant multiple sales and to change managers are things i would expect a healthy Trust to be involved in. Not excluded from as your post suggests.
I remain a member and now is a time for decisions to be made and positive actions to be taken. We need leadership from our Trust.
I suspect the response will be: "Well stand for election then."
Good post btw, delivered with a coolness which mine lacked. They've been basking in reflected glory for a decade but now they're called in to action............. nothing.
‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 06:40 - Dec 8 by Brynmill_Jack
Only because the trust are still there to be shot at. They've been terribly marginalized by the board for years and the sell outs must be relieved when the trust is taking some of the flack which should solely be reserved for them.
A good few years ago when in my teens I borrowed my mates car to go to Elm Park (Readings old ground) with FB was in charge. It was the day of the riot and nasty stuff. Anyway, he had a nice car. An Audi quarto 4x4. Before i took the car his words.... You bend it, you mend it.
I took that to mean I had total responsibility for his car and should look after it and ensure that when I return it to him its in the same condition as when i took it.
With respect to our club and that anyone in position in the trust is temporary can they say that they can had the club to the next elected board that the club is n the same position/condition (however you wish to describe) than it was 3 years ago? 5 years ago?
The old board were always in it to grow the club and business and sell on. Those that think otherwise are deluded and anyone with an inking of how business works will now what I mean. They invested and will always be looking to get their cash back. For example, you don't mortgage your house and invest for the sake of it, on whim, with out thinking of the future and how yo get your money back, helpfully with growth.
We know the role of the Trust and in particular HC. As Resurrection said on another thread if he had been the SD he would have been all over board over the last 3 years or so. He would have communicated/publicised any perceived wrong doings etc. There are many who would have acted in a similar way. He's also right regarding the COI that Huw and maybe others have. All wonderful guys I'm sure but being nice and liked isn't what this is about. Its about carrying our your responsibilities without excuses. If you have an excuse or COI you shouldn't be in position END OF. Also, i'd like to add that you win as a team and loose as a team. HC lost and as such the knock on effect was the Trust loosing and ultimately the club and fans.
The Trust should have been policing the likes of Jenkins, Dineen et al. They didn't. Instead they became friends.
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 06:13 - Dec 8 by waynekerr55
Can I ask a question?
I know the trust and in particular HC messed up, but why is so much energy being expended on slaughtering the trust?
The full and unequivocal weight of our anger should be directed to Dineen and Jenkins. It was those two utter cūnts who've shat on us and have fúcked the club we all love.
By all means let Jenkins, Dineen et al have both barrels but that's just emotion though, calling them names achieves little besides them saying f*ck it and walking away. We'll still be in the same place as we are now.
‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:46 - Dec 8 by jojaca
Naaa.... They just announced his press conference at 1:45 today on Sky Sports News. Surely the timing is wrong anyway with three games in a space of week coming up.
Seriously?? Wrong timing? When he has got us beaten in all three games (as i expect he will) we will be in a terrible position. Would rather chop him now and try something else.
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 06:13 - Dec 8 by waynekerr55
Can I ask a question?
I know the trust and in particular HC messed up, but why is so much energy being expended on slaughtering the trust?
The full and unequivocal weight of our anger should be directed to Dineen and Jenkins. It was those two utter cūnts who've shat on us and have fúcked the club we all love.
Although I agree with the above, but how far did HC fukup and should he have been in Mondays meeting, is he someone the Trust can still trust, if its true that he was out slurping with the sellouts the other week, then he shouldn't have been there, imo.
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:55 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge
This is the bit where I disagree with some of the comments. The Trust knew perfectly well, especially after the first American deal, that the old shareholders wanted to sell. After the first deal went away (no doubt partly because of the forensic focus the Trust took to the deal), the sellers decided to keep the Trust out of the loop for the second. A deliberate act.
I've seen a few comments saying that the Trust should have known. How? I've seen some comments saying that if the Trust had been more aggressive then they would have. How does that work exactly? Agitate more and that would somehow make the sellers be more ready to talk? It's an entirely counterproductive argument. And even then, would it have driven them away? This was an entirely different deal to the initial minority stake (progressing over 3 years to a majority) Moores and Noell were negotiating. To me it's clear, the sellers deliberately kept the Trust out of the discussions, deliberately kept discussions away from the club, because they didn't want anything interfering with the sale. That's the beginning, middle and end of it. Given the loose lips of the sellers in other regards, I'm amazed they managed it.
From that moment, the Trust has a number of unpalatable options. Come out against the sale, but frankly to what ends. Nobody could tell at that time if the Yanks were a good or a bad thing. The jury is still out to some degree (the criticisms of the team now are largely due to historic actions), although I think they've handled a lot of things very badly.
The Trust could still be a lot more aggressive to the Americans, and indeed could still do so, but it would have to be for a reason, and the consequences of doing that need to be understood also. Maybe it's been too passive on that front, in some ways I'd agree, but sounding off for no reason just means that even the paltry dialogue to date would have been more difficult.
The Trust could come out against Jenkins as Chairman, and might still well do. Lots of people talk about him cashing out, and that's the emotive line, but for me his biggest issues are surrounding the player and manager recruitment over recent years, the lack of proactive planning and the increasingly reactive actions (the last 3 manager appointments have been purely reactionary). The latest Tutumlu revelations don't reflect well on his influence on player recruitment back then either, which to many was a significant defence. While I think everyone knew that Tutumlu had an unhealthy influence at the time, to see it written in such degree was shocking.
I probably shouldn't post when I'm tired and cranky, it'd never end well. Mea culpa. However I've got no interest in being a pinata for all the ills of the club, and that's what the Trust has become for some. That rather grates when, for me, we are where we are because of the actions of other people.
Bollocks, utter bollocks.
Answer me one question.
Why didn't you bomb Cooze out 2 years ago??
Answer that and then try coming back with those tired old excuses, as that's what they are.
* 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
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:55 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge
This is the bit where I disagree with some of the comments. The Trust knew perfectly well, especially after the first American deal, that the old shareholders wanted to sell. After the first deal went away (no doubt partly because of the forensic focus the Trust took to the deal), the sellers decided to keep the Trust out of the loop for the second. A deliberate act.
I've seen a few comments saying that the Trust should have known. How? I've seen some comments saying that if the Trust had been more aggressive then they would have. How does that work exactly? Agitate more and that would somehow make the sellers be more ready to talk? It's an entirely counterproductive argument. And even then, would it have driven them away? This was an entirely different deal to the initial minority stake (progressing over 3 years to a majority) Moores and Noell were negotiating. To me it's clear, the sellers deliberately kept the Trust out of the discussions, deliberately kept discussions away from the club, because they didn't want anything interfering with the sale. That's the beginning, middle and end of it. Given the loose lips of the sellers in other regards, I'm amazed they managed it.
From that moment, the Trust has a number of unpalatable options. Come out against the sale, but frankly to what ends. Nobody could tell at that time if the Yanks were a good or a bad thing. The jury is still out to some degree (the criticisms of the team now are largely due to historic actions), although I think they've handled a lot of things very badly.
The Trust could still be a lot more aggressive to the Americans, and indeed could still do so, but it would have to be for a reason, and the consequences of doing that need to be understood also. Maybe it's been too passive on that front, in some ways I'd agree, but sounding off for no reason just means that even the paltry dialogue to date would have been more difficult.
The Trust could come out against Jenkins as Chairman, and might still well do. Lots of people talk about him cashing out, and that's the emotive line, but for me his biggest issues are surrounding the player and manager recruitment over recent years, the lack of proactive planning and the increasingly reactive actions (the last 3 manager appointments have been purely reactionary). The latest Tutumlu revelations don't reflect well on his influence on player recruitment back then either, which to many was a significant defence. While I think everyone knew that Tutumlu had an unhealthy influence at the time, to see it written in such degree was shocking.
I probably shouldn't post when I'm tired and cranky, it'd never end well. Mea culpa. However I've got no interest in being a pinata for all the ills of the club, and that's what the Trust has become for some. That rather grates when, for me, we are where we are because of the actions of other people.
Interesting comments about loose lips of the board so here's a question, the trust having batted away the first sale of the club and knowing full well that the board would again be looking to sell the club, didn't the trust task Huw Cooze with looking very closely at the board for any signs of a further sale? Baring in mind huws very close relationship with the board (drinking buddy's) didn't this cause doubt/concerns amongst trust members, basically did you wonder which side hc was working for.
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make."
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 09:40 - Dec 8 by Smellyplumz
Interesting comments about loose lips of the board so here's a question, the trust having batted away the first sale of the club and knowing full well that the board would again be looking to sell the club, didn't the trust task Huw Cooze with looking very closely at the board for any signs of a further sale? Baring in mind huws very close relationship with the board (drinking buddy's) didn't this cause doubt/concerns amongst trust members, basically did you wonder which side hc was working for.
A double agent then
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
0
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 09:55 - Dec 8 with 1098 views
I see pure vitriol being thrown around like confetti, at a time when we re bottom of league with clueless manager. Yet...
Here s a question.
Why are we so concerned about the Trust , the sale , Huw fookn Cooze, the sellers ,the Cloggie ,at this time.
It's absolutely the wrong time for all this.
What should be happening is Huw Jenkins truly being forced to stand down and fans feelings be made clearly and in profound fashion at home games and at away games.
We need to fight on the fookn pitch.
Whoever is or was right about this take over isn't important. No really ,it ain't. Internet great posts also don't matter
We know we re in shite and should ALL stick together.
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 08:55 - Dec 8 by Uxbridge
This is the bit where I disagree with some of the comments. The Trust knew perfectly well, especially after the first American deal, that the old shareholders wanted to sell. After the first deal went away (no doubt partly because of the forensic focus the Trust took to the deal), the sellers decided to keep the Trust out of the loop for the second. A deliberate act.
I've seen a few comments saying that the Trust should have known. How? I've seen some comments saying that if the Trust had been more aggressive then they would have. How does that work exactly? Agitate more and that would somehow make the sellers be more ready to talk? It's an entirely counterproductive argument. And even then, would it have driven them away? This was an entirely different deal to the initial minority stake (progressing over 3 years to a majority) Moores and Noell were negotiating. To me it's clear, the sellers deliberately kept the Trust out of the discussions, deliberately kept discussions away from the club, because they didn't want anything interfering with the sale. That's the beginning, middle and end of it. Given the loose lips of the sellers in other regards, I'm amazed they managed it.
From that moment, the Trust has a number of unpalatable options. Come out against the sale, but frankly to what ends. Nobody could tell at that time if the Yanks were a good or a bad thing. The jury is still out to some degree (the criticisms of the team now are largely due to historic actions), although I think they've handled a lot of things very badly.
The Trust could still be a lot more aggressive to the Americans, and indeed could still do so, but it would have to be for a reason, and the consequences of doing that need to be understood also. Maybe it's been too passive on that front, in some ways I'd agree, but sounding off for no reason just means that even the paltry dialogue to date would have been more difficult.
The Trust could come out against Jenkins as Chairman, and might still well do. Lots of people talk about him cashing out, and that's the emotive line, but for me his biggest issues are surrounding the player and manager recruitment over recent years, the lack of proactive planning and the increasingly reactive actions (the last 3 manager appointments have been purely reactionary). The latest Tutumlu revelations don't reflect well on his influence on player recruitment back then either, which to many was a significant defence. While I think everyone knew that Tutumlu had an unhealthy influence at the time, to see it written in such degree was shocking.
I probably shouldn't post when I'm tired and cranky, it'd never end well. Mea culpa. However I've got no interest in being a pinata for all the ills of the club, and that's what the Trust has become for some. That rather grates when, for me, we are where we are because of the actions of other people.
Ux, lots and lots of respect mate, but there's some stuff in here that sums up the Trust's lack of action in a nutshell -
" Nobody could tell at that time if the Yanks were a good or a bad thing. The jury is still out to some degree... "
The juty is still out (on whether the Yanks is a good thing or a bad thing) - they bought the club behind our backs, they changed managers without consulting fellow directors. On what basis is the jury still out?
"The Trust could still be a lot more aggressive to the Americans, and indeed could still do so, but it would have to be for a reason...." So the 2 reasons given above isn't enough of a reason?
".....but sounding off for no reason just means that even the paltry dialogue to date would have been more difficult" No reason, pfft, and if the consequence of the Trust not kicking up a fuss is that they only get rewarded with paltry dialogue, what's the point?
As has been said many times, lots of kudos to Trust board members for putting in so much personal time, but for me the Trust is as dangerous to the Yanks as a new-born lamb. When both parties have the same objective, the Trust is fine, but it just doesn't know how to react to aggresive takeovers or management control.
1
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:24 - Dec 8 with 950 views
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 09:19 - Dec 8 by BryanSwan
Seriously?? Wrong timing? When he has got us beaten in all three games (as i expect he will) we will be in a terrible position. Would rather chop him now and try something else.
Have faith man.
Even when you know, you never know?
0
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:37 - Dec 8 with 902 views
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 09:12 - Dec 8 by ItchySphincter
By all means let Jenkins, Dineen et al have both barrels but that's just emotion though, calling them names achieves little besides them saying f*ck it and walking away. We'll still be in the same place as we are now.
It's a shame the c*nts don't walk away.
The Tutumlu revelations pose a key question about Jenkins in a Durham Talksport style "is he all that?"
And precisely what does that cretin Dineen do? Norwich City embarrassed us on the commercial front.
The best thing that can happen is for the pair of them to f*ck off. Their action show they don't give a f*ck about the club, so there is zero benefit for them hanging around.
Rumour on twitter that Bobs gone on 10:37 - Dec 8 by waynekerr55
It's a shame the c*nts don't walk away.
The Tutumlu revelations pose a key question about Jenkins in a Durham Talksport style "is he all that?"
And precisely what does that cretin Dineen do? Norwich City embarrassed us on the commercial front.
The best thing that can happen is for the pair of them to f*ck off. Their action show they don't give a f*ck about the club, so there is zero benefit for them hanging around.
Quite. Jenkins is Chairman, and Dineen is still employed and angling for a directorship. They're pretty bloody relevant to the now.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
