| Building Bridges on 13:36 - Feb 15 with 4963 views | siralan |
"Trust and mutual respect"
Bollox
They are happy to make our 21% worthless,if that's trust and mutual respect you can stick it. [Post edited 15 Feb 2017 13:39]
|  | |  |
| Building Bridges on 13:38 - Feb 15 with 4958 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 13:36 - Feb 15 by siralan |
"Trust and mutual respect"
Bollox
They are happy to make our 21% worthless,if that's trust and mutual respect you can stick it. [Post edited 15 Feb 2017 13:39]
|
Exactly, you can't do business with respect and trust with a man who has already breached trust to earn 7 million quid !
FFS ! |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 13:54 - Feb 15 with 4907 views | waynekerr55 |
| Building Bridges on 13:38 - Feb 15 by Loyal |
Exactly, you can't do business with respect and trust with a man who has already breached trust to earn 7 million quid !
FFS ! |
Well, that's the thing. Will the sneaky, useless and arrogant tw*t still be in post?
I read into that statement that the Trust have built bridges with the new majority shareholders. The other parasites should be f*cked off pronto. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 14:07 - Feb 15 with 4870 views | Nookiejack |
The company articles have been changed in favour of the Yanks.
Try selling Trusts stake to a 3rd party such as Chinese investors under the new articles. No chance Yanks wouldn't allow it. Legal action would start immediately. Not like Trust dithering and dathering circa 7 months later after Yanks takeover.
All is well though as long as the Trust has a few season tickets to the Directors box. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 14:28 - Feb 15 with 4823 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Is this because the second opinion of the legal case was deemed not strong enough?
Anyway this is nothing to be celebrated. They happily screwed you over before and I am absolutely sure they would do it again if it benefited them. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 14:32 - Feb 15 with 4804 views | swancity |
All very well 'building bridges' but the far more pressing matter relates to the sale of the Club, yes sale of the Club no less behind the backs of the Trust and what course of action is required.
That needs to take priority over everything else as until that is resolved there is no way forward or future for the Trust. It's all very well being allowed to attend Board meetings ....big deal...but after the treachery, lies and deceit they can't move on until a firm, definite decision made and the legal action taken. After 6/7 months and nearly £30,000 spent on legal costs the Trust have to act now to restore any respectability that they once had. Failing that they're just pissing into the wind playing games and frankly might as well have a game on FIFA17.
Man up and get on with it. Meanwhile, stay at arms length and don't let them take your knickers off and get you into bed. Play hard to get and then shaft them all day and all night when the time comes. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 14:33 - Feb 15 with 4799 views | waynekerr55 |
| Building Bridges on 14:28 - Feb 15 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Is this because the second opinion of the legal case was deemed not strong enough?
Anyway this is nothing to be celebrated. They happily screwed you over before and I am absolutely sure they would do it again if it benefited them. |
The thing is, prejudice has to show that the value of the shares have been depreciated significantly. Stay in the Prem...
Also, any action against the c*nts who f*cked us implicates the Americans, which may cause further problems for the club. I just want the sell outs to f*ck off back in to obscurity and never be seen at the club again. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 14:34 - Feb 15 with 4791 views | swancity |
| Building Bridges on 14:33 - Feb 15 by waynekerr55 |
The thing is, prejudice has to show that the value of the shares have been depreciated significantly. Stay in the Prem...
Also, any action against the c*nts who f*cked us implicates the Americans, which may cause further problems for the club. I just want the sell outs to f*ck off back in to obscurity and never be seen at the club again. |
And what about the financial implications ? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Building Bridges on 14:40 - Feb 15 with 4770 views | waynekerr55 |
| Building Bridges on 14:34 - Feb 15 by swancity |
And what about the financial implications ? |
Exactly.
The main problems:
- new AoA mean that our shares are pretty worthless, as are the sell outs.
- any legal action has implications for the club as a whole.
Jenkins et al. have f*cked us. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 14:47 - Feb 15 with 4744 views | swancity |
| Building Bridges on 14:40 - Feb 15 by waynekerr55 |
Exactly.
The main problems:
- new AoA mean that our shares are pretty worthless, as are the sell outs.
- any legal action has implications for the club as a whole.
Jenkins et al. have f*cked us. |
What implications for the club? This is a matter v the previous owners isn't it? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 14:49 - Feb 15 with 4726 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| Building Bridges on 14:33 - Feb 15 by waynekerr55 |
The thing is, prejudice has to show that the value of the shares have been depreciated significantly. Stay in the Prem...
Also, any action against the c*nts who f*cked us implicates the Americans, which may cause further problems for the club. I just want the sell outs to f*ck off back in to obscurity and never be seen at the club again. |
It wasn't just the former majority shareholders who screwed us. The Americans also were part of the deliberately deceptive sale. If it implicates them then great. They deserve it.
The Trust, through their own negligence and the deceitful practices of both the former majority shareholders and the Americans have had their shares reduced in value from tens of millions to arguably nothing.
I would absolutely be willing to see them all punished and hopefully see criminal charges brought against anybody who acted illegally. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 14:53 - Feb 15 with 4720 views | swancity |
| Building Bridges on 14:28 - Feb 15 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Is this because the second opinion of the legal case was deemed not strong enough?
Anyway this is nothing to be celebrated. They happily screwed you over before and I am absolutely sure they would do it again if it benefited them. |
Precisely. They were tossed to one side like a meaningless worthless twopenny rabbit once and it will happen again.
There is no point in pretending that they (the Trust) matter as they don't. The new and old owners are merely pandering to them to keep them sweet. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 15:02 - Feb 15 with 4679 views | Darran |
If the original sale broke the rules of the previous shareholders agreement the Trust MUST take legal action.
Surely winning that legal action could stop the further dilution of shares? (and also bring people to task for acting illegally) |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:03 - Feb 15 with 4582 views | monmouth |
FWIW (nothing as it happens).I re-read the relevant communique and I read it now as getting a confirmatory opinion and if as expected legal action to be taken at the end of the season. Or maybe when we're safe. Probably just me doing 2+2=22. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:49 - Feb 15 with 4498 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 14:49 - Feb 15 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
It wasn't just the former majority shareholders who screwed us. The Americans also were part of the deliberately deceptive sale. If it implicates them then great. They deserve it.
The Trust, through their own negligence and the deceitful practices of both the former majority shareholders and the Americans have had their shares reduced in value from tens of millions to arguably nothing.
I would absolutely be willing to see them all punished and hopefully see criminal charges brought against anybody who acted illegally. |
This whole "the Trust shares are worthless" nonsense that gets repeated really needs challenging. They have not lost their entire financial value. They are still worth millions and millions. The issues are in terms of the influence they can exert.
Anyway, to the statement. IMO the Trust has two paths to follow here, and in parallel. There's whether a working relationship between the Trust and the Americans can be established. Things have clearly improved on that point, as referenced by the director being appointed to 2002 (a key issue to date) and the increased oversight at board level. There has been increased engagement (Pearlman presented his plans to the full Trust board in the last meeting, and there are regular meetings between the Trust reps and the Americans) in recent times.
Then there's the issue of the Trust stake. The Americans won't negotiate on making an offer for the Trust's stake until the summer. That's the reality of things. In the meantime, the Trust has taken legal action on the actions to date, and is going to get further guidance to see what options exist should there be no path through negotiations. The view of the Trust board is to see how that plays out.
I do think we need to think about what is the reason for the Trust. Isn't it to have influence in the running of the club, and be able to act as the eyes and ears of the fans there? There's so much focus on getting after the sellers, or focus on the money that could come into the Trust's coffers (at the expense of said influence) that I think this is being lost.
As for the sellers, I'd shed no tears if they were all ejected. I'm glad the Clog has been kept away from the directors box on matchday. I know he's not the only former director that has either, much to their chagrin. However, two are being kept on in the running of the club, and that has the backing of the Americans. In terms of a handover period you could maybe see the logic, but in the long term you'd have to think that's untenable, not least because they'll always be the target once form dips on the pitch. However, I don't see now as the time to fight that battle with things so fragile in terms of our PL safety. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:51 - Feb 15 with 4485 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 16:03 - Feb 15 by monmouth |
FWIW (nothing as it happens).I re-read the relevant communique and I read it now as getting a confirmatory opinion and if as expected legal action to be taken at the end of the season. Or maybe when we're safe. Probably just me doing 2+2=22. |
I probably should have read the whole thread, but pretty much. Legal action always has to be the last resort though ... as you know it's never guaranteed and comes with other costs not just financial. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:55 - Feb 15 with 4460 views | Darran |
| Building Bridges on 16:49 - Feb 15 by Uxbridge |
This whole "the Trust shares are worthless" nonsense that gets repeated really needs challenging. They have not lost their entire financial value. They are still worth millions and millions. The issues are in terms of the influence they can exert.
Anyway, to the statement. IMO the Trust has two paths to follow here, and in parallel. There's whether a working relationship between the Trust and the Americans can be established. Things have clearly improved on that point, as referenced by the director being appointed to 2002 (a key issue to date) and the increased oversight at board level. There has been increased engagement (Pearlman presented his plans to the full Trust board in the last meeting, and there are regular meetings between the Trust reps and the Americans) in recent times.
Then there's the issue of the Trust stake. The Americans won't negotiate on making an offer for the Trust's stake until the summer. That's the reality of things. In the meantime, the Trust has taken legal action on the actions to date, and is going to get further guidance to see what options exist should there be no path through negotiations. The view of the Trust board is to see how that plays out.
I do think we need to think about what is the reason for the Trust. Isn't it to have influence in the running of the club, and be able to act as the eyes and ears of the fans there? There's so much focus on getting after the sellers, or focus on the money that could come into the Trust's coffers (at the expense of said influence) that I think this is being lost.
As for the sellers, I'd shed no tears if they were all ejected. I'm glad the Clog has been kept away from the directors box on matchday. I know he's not the only former director that has either, much to their chagrin. However, two are being kept on in the running of the club, and that has the backing of the Americans. In terms of a handover period you could maybe see the logic, but in the long term you'd have to think that's untenable, not least because they'll always be the target once form dips on the pitch. However, I don't see now as the time to fight that battle with things so fragile in terms of our PL safety. |
The clog is still having perks though like taking all his crew on a tour of the stadium every time he's brings them over. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 17:22 - Feb 15 with 4422 views | swancity |
| Building Bridges on 16:49 - Feb 15 by Uxbridge |
This whole "the Trust shares are worthless" nonsense that gets repeated really needs challenging. They have not lost their entire financial value. They are still worth millions and millions. The issues are in terms of the influence they can exert.
Anyway, to the statement. IMO the Trust has two paths to follow here, and in parallel. There's whether a working relationship between the Trust and the Americans can be established. Things have clearly improved on that point, as referenced by the director being appointed to 2002 (a key issue to date) and the increased oversight at board level. There has been increased engagement (Pearlman presented his plans to the full Trust board in the last meeting, and there are regular meetings between the Trust reps and the Americans) in recent times.
Then there's the issue of the Trust stake. The Americans won't negotiate on making an offer for the Trust's stake until the summer. That's the reality of things. In the meantime, the Trust has taken legal action on the actions to date, and is going to get further guidance to see what options exist should there be no path through negotiations. The view of the Trust board is to see how that plays out.
I do think we need to think about what is the reason for the Trust. Isn't it to have influence in the running of the club, and be able to act as the eyes and ears of the fans there? There's so much focus on getting after the sellers, or focus on the money that could come into the Trust's coffers (at the expense of said influence) that I think this is being lost.
As for the sellers, I'd shed no tears if they were all ejected. I'm glad the Clog has been kept away from the directors box on matchday. I know he's not the only former director that has either, much to their chagrin. However, two are being kept on in the running of the club, and that has the backing of the Americans. In terms of a handover period you could maybe see the logic, but in the long term you'd have to think that's untenable, not least because they'll always be the target once form dips on the pitch. However, I don't see now as the time to fight that battle with things so fragile in terms of our PL safety. |
You're once again delaying the very things you should be getting stuck into. The Trust have been treated with contempt and yet you're happy to put off plans to do anything about it. Again.
It's that very same attitude and approach to things in general that previously endangered the future of the Trust. You're just going along very cosily with everything that the new and old owners want. They've got you on a plate for dinner again and will spit you out again when it suits them. And you can't or don't want to see it. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 18:00 - Feb 15 with 4339 views | headcleaner |
| Building Bridges on 16:55 - Feb 15 by Darran |
The clog is still having perks though like taking all his crew on a tour of the stadium every time he's brings them over. |
A load of them were trumping out of the dragon Sunday afternoon probably on their way to their tour of the stadium and a meet and greet with the squad before ko
Make the twunt pay to sit in the east stand because whilst he might not be able to sit in the directors box he's still lauding it in hopsitality |  | | |
| Building Bridges on 18:29 - Feb 15 with 4279 views | waynekerr55 |
| Building Bridges on 16:49 - Feb 15 by Uxbridge |
This whole "the Trust shares are worthless" nonsense that gets repeated really needs challenging. They have not lost their entire financial value. They are still worth millions and millions. The issues are in terms of the influence they can exert.
Anyway, to the statement. IMO the Trust has two paths to follow here, and in parallel. There's whether a working relationship between the Trust and the Americans can be established. Things have clearly improved on that point, as referenced by the director being appointed to 2002 (a key issue to date) and the increased oversight at board level. There has been increased engagement (Pearlman presented his plans to the full Trust board in the last meeting, and there are regular meetings between the Trust reps and the Americans) in recent times.
Then there's the issue of the Trust stake. The Americans won't negotiate on making an offer for the Trust's stake until the summer. That's the reality of things. In the meantime, the Trust has taken legal action on the actions to date, and is going to get further guidance to see what options exist should there be no path through negotiations. The view of the Trust board is to see how that plays out.
I do think we need to think about what is the reason for the Trust. Isn't it to have influence in the running of the club, and be able to act as the eyes and ears of the fans there? There's so much focus on getting after the sellers, or focus on the money that could come into the Trust's coffers (at the expense of said influence) that I think this is being lost.
As for the sellers, I'd shed no tears if they were all ejected. I'm glad the Clog has been kept away from the directors box on matchday. I know he's not the only former director that has either, much to their chagrin. However, two are being kept on in the running of the club, and that has the backing of the Americans. In terms of a handover period you could maybe see the logic, but in the long term you'd have to think that's untenable, not least because they'll always be the target once form dips on the pitch. However, I don't see now as the time to fight that battle with things so fragile in terms of our PL safety. |
Sorry Uxy, I should have said difficult to sell on the open market | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 18:31 - Feb 15 with 4261 views | monmouth |
| Building Bridges on 16:51 - Feb 15 by Uxbridge |
I probably should have read the whole thread, but pretty much. Legal action always has to be the last resort though ... as you know it's never guaranteed and comes with other costs not just financial. |
Yes I should have added ", decision on " after "expected" | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 18:47 - Feb 15 with 4212 views | swancity |
| Building Bridges on 18:29 - Feb 15 by waynekerr55 |
Sorry Uxy, I should have said difficult to sell on the open market |
So the shares have gone from being 'pretty worthless' to being worth 'millions and millions' all within an afternoon. Who is right? The plot thickens. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 18:58 - Feb 15 with 4187 views | pikeypaul |
At the market rate that the scum sold out at the value would be £21million.
But due to the greedy barstewards not caring a toss about the club or its fans
just how much wonga they could line their own pockets with which in the case of
Jenkins was over £7,000,000 the trusts shares are worth a fraction of their original value.
And the Trust are prepared to talk to the slimey filth,unbelievable. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 19:20 - Feb 15 with 4136 views | Private_Partz |
| Building Bridges on 17:22 - Feb 15 by swancity |
You're once again delaying the very things you should be getting stuck into. The Trust have been treated with contempt and yet you're happy to put off plans to do anything about it. Again.
It's that very same attitude and approach to things in general that previously endangered the future of the Trust. You're just going along very cosily with everything that the new and old owners want. They've got you on a plate for dinner again and will spit you out again when it suits them. And you can't or don't want to see it. |
I can see both sides of the argument but I must say I am in favour of waiting until the end of the season before any legal action is taken. If the owners are prepared to stick with the new unsigned (by the Trust) shareholder agreement as opposed to the original then, if the latter is still deemed legal, action can be taken.
We are getting stability on the pitch. I think it should remain that way off the pitch as well as it does the team no favours having legal action and fans protests whilst we are fighting for our survival.
I would have had a very different view if we were rock bottom of the league with Bradley still in charge. We would have nothing to lose then and nothing to gain by waiting. |  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Building Bridges on 19:21 - Feb 15 with 4135 views | NeathJack |
| Building Bridges on 19:20 - Feb 15 by Private_Partz |
I can see both sides of the argument but I must say I am in favour of waiting until the end of the season before any legal action is taken. If the owners are prepared to stick with the new unsigned (by the Trust) shareholder agreement as opposed to the original then, if the latter is still deemed legal, action can be taken.
We are getting stability on the pitch. I think it should remain that way off the pitch as well as it does the team no favours having legal action and fans protests whilst we are fighting for our survival.
I would have had a very different view if we were rock bottom of the league with Bradley still in charge. We would have nothing to lose then and nothing to gain by waiting. |
Sense. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
