| Trust Statement 20:42 - Apr 11 with 31559 views | monmouth |
Good!!! |  |
| |  |
| Trust Statement on 20:46 - Apr 12 with 2205 views | Loyal |
| Trust Statement on 20:35 - Apr 12 by Darran |
No battle my friend just stating the facts the things that have been said on that other site about Phil is a disgrace. |
It's about time they were said in the flesh, Phil never gets these statements said to him in person. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Trust Statement on 20:46 - Apr 12 with 2195 views | Darran |
| Trust Statement on 20:46 - Apr 12 by Loyal |
It's about time they were said in the flesh, Phil never gets these statements said to him in person. |
It's called being a shithouse my friend. |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 20:57 - Apr 12 with 2167 views | Vetchfielder |
Thanks very much Spratty for pressing this on the night and also for taking the time to type out a verbatim account of that part of the meeting.
 |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Trust Statement on 21:14 - Apr 12 with 2129 views | budegan |
| Trust Statement on 20:57 - Apr 12 by Vetchfielder |
Thanks very much Spratty for pressing this on the night and also for taking the time to type out a verbatim account of that part of the meeting.
|
Indeed, thank you.
I have 2 questions I'd appreciate anyone's thoughts on.
1) Why has this issue come to light now? Why the timing of the press story this week?
2) Does "we don’t see this evening as a look back at what happened at the share sale, we have had those discussions” mean that there's no fight in the Trust leaders? |  | | |
| Trust Statement on 21:41 - Apr 12 with 2066 views | Darran |
| Trust Statement on 19:31 - Apr 12 by Spratty |
Ok it was me that asked Jason these questions about the Shareholder Agreement at the meeting, so I have a fair insight into what went on….
I repeatedly pressed Jason about how we could trust them when the sale was conducted illegally in relation to the Shareholder Agreement. I was floored when he latterly very clearly said they had asked the Trust “are you interested in us acquiring your shares as well”. Phil was sat right next to Jason when he said this
Despite a rebuttal now being issued, it is a pity Phil said nothing at the time, thus giving it a sense of accuracy. It was too important for the Trust to say nothing in this situation, implicitly adding veracity to these comments, such that it was printed in local and national media with attendant implication that they were willing to buy our shares. Same for the denials over the Shareholder Agreement.
There need not have been any argument, just a simple statement in the pauses that followed at the end for e.g. just to put on record that the Trust provided a copy of the Shareholder agreement to the buyers before the sale.
I would also comment that "the members will decide" and "no offer has been made" has been used again and again on this very website when being urged to pursue a sale on the same terms as the other shareholders. The important word being PURSUE.
In reality the Trust statement does not comment on whether or not Jason actually asked the question he stated. Also if it was asked:
- what the Trusts response was
- Was the implied willingness to buy our shares on equal terms an actuality and if so why it was not negotiated by both sides to an offer — so the members may actually decide
I was taken back by Phil’s introduction when he said “we don’t see this evening as a look back at what happened at the share sale, we have had those discussions” Well no we certainly had not had that opportunity with those culpable.
I had pressed Jason so much on his knowledge of the Shareholder Agreement that I could not push on the implied offer to buy shares without taking over the meeting, which seemed unfair to others that had equally valid questions and had been bold enough to question their conduct during the sale in the first place (despite Phil instructing us at the start of the meeting that we should only look to the future). It seems fortuitous that sale conduct was addressed as the repeated questioning on this topic has thrown to open record both internal inconsistencies between answers and on the face of the Trust Statement — deviation from intention.
It is all contained in the recording of the meeting which was posted here and is on the Trust website http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/04/07/audio-recording-of-trust-members-forum/
I thought given my central involvement in this it may be useful from the recording of the meeting to provide a transcript of the main 6 minute segment relating to the Shareholder Agreement so that it can clearly be seen by anyone, what was and was not said by JASON
(the comments in between labelled MY NOTE are merely my musings - I make further comments at the end of the transcript) ……
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 59:38 on the recording — after already been told by another member that their conduct both before and after the sale was not particularly trustworthy and is the elephant in the room. Every time we ask for some real facts you are very evasive.
JASON - asked what facts we wanted to know and I interjected…….
ME Why you colluded with the sellers to keep the Trust out of it, and why you went ahead with the sale that was against the Shareholders Agreement and hadn’t met with the requirements — the legal requirements of the Shareholder Agreement.
Now you talk about heart and honesty, how can we believe that when you excluded the people who would be your main shareholders alongside you? We can’t believe that and you’ve got a big job making us believe that.
After some stuttering / superficial comments — understand your hurt great community great opportunity etc….
JASON - The majority of shares were held by shareholders other than the Trust and there was a chairman and er we engaged with the shareholders of the er club who owned almost 80% of the club and (pause) we went through the processes they thought they they directed us. Now (pause)
1:01:16 — 29 ME ??? More pushing by me difficult to pick up word for word — but if necessary this should be possible
JASON - Sure so what I would say is we certainly did not collude with these shareholders
(MY NOTE — if you worked with them to exclude the Trust — one of the main shareholders - from initial discussions / agreements, then from my understanding of the English language you most certainly did collude with them to exclude the Trust, although understand why you would want to deny this)
we had to negotiate with them they were the other side of the table
(MY NOTE — were the other main shareholders on the other side of the table, didn’t one of them attest that the main driver in this had fixed up the deal behind their back)
and we had to figure out could we acquire their shares and what price and what was the role we would play ahh
1:01:45 ME ??? — further comment by me pushing him on their actions
JASON - So in March of 2016 prior to us having er er a con
(MY NOTE - think he was going to say contract here and changed his mind and said deal — possibly because a pre-sale contract already existed at this stage and it’s admission did not look good)
a deal with any shareholders we met with the Supporters Trust. In August of 2016 well the end of July early August. 4 or so months later we consummated er a transaction with those shareholders.
(MY NOTE - consummated an interesting term - relating to enacting something to which an agreement was already in place)
So yes there was a period of time prior to March of 2016 when we were getting to know shareholders erm and we were around the club, I was. Learning about the club, learning about its history learning about how it was run, em but the first day that we formally told the Supporters Trust that we were interested in acquiring the shares. 4 months went by before we closed the transaction to buy those shares
(MY NOTE interesting again this period used as indication there was sufficient consultation with the trust, however to my recall it was well publicised that they wanted to push the sale through much quicker but there were delays — perhaps because of concerns re the shareholders agreement — also what real negotiations took place with the Trust during this time)
So erm eh I just wanted to make sure that that from our perspective maybe 4 months wasn’t enough time to communicate with the Supporters Trust prior to investing in the club maybe it should have been 6 months or 8 months
(MY NOTE — interesting admission yet as noted above the actual plan had been to conclude the sale much more quickly than it actually was)
erm but we certainly were communicating with the Trust prior to making any investment in the club.
1:02:53 — ME — but you already had done so much, you had done so much before that, which the Trust was excluded from. For instance we may in the situation, where, you may be very nice now in the situation that we are in while things are a bit in the air legally, but who knows what will happen in the future from people who excluded, the Trust.
Now we may have wanted to sell our shares. It may be a position that because we can’t do much to effect the club we could do that just as a fans group not as shareholders and we have been disadvantaged because we have not had the opportunity to sell our shares at the price that everyone else has. Because we could put that money aside and maybe save the club in future if needs be, while you went ahead.
And you know you say all the right things and I would expect nothing less from the two of you. And that is no insult or anything but you are going to say the right things aren’t you?
But obviously your interests is doing the best with the club that you can and that is great for us, but you are going to have a get out, if things go wrong, and that’s when it comes down to us the Trust. But we’ve been disadvantaged because we weren’t given first refusal for instance if we wanted to buy more shares, which was part of the Shareholder Agreement. And you knew that didn’t you? You knew about the Shareholder Agreement.
JASON - So number one em tut er we as soon as that that meeting was held with the Trust in March of 2016 erm I met with eh lawyers of the Trust and I said would you all be interested and we are four months away maybe three months six months, I didn’t know at that time, away from the transaction
Would you, are you interested in us acquiring your shares as well (murmurs from the room in response to that statement) so I did ask that question and there were four months that went by before we consummated the transaction that’s number one
Number two erm without getting into you know the details that that as best as I recall them
(MY NOTE —as best as I recall them — now you have my full attention)
We were not aware of any other arrangement where Shareholders Agreement erm with any other parties. We approached the shareholders to acquire their shares erm and when we did that erm (pause) we were not aware of any any other arrangements buddying? the parties
ME 1:05:24 So you were totally unaware of the shareholder agreement? You knew nothing of it?
JASON - It was represented to us that there was no shareholder agreement at the time that we came in to acquire the club
ME 1:05:35 but you knew there was one, but that it was told to you that it wasn’t valid? Is that correct? (pause)
Or are you saying you didn’t think there was a shareholders agreement at all
JASON — Yes
ME 1:05:50 — So you had never heard of a shareholder agreement?
JASON - so we had heard rumblings that there were different agreements between the parties, we’d never seen the document (pause)
we asked to see it
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point (which raises so many more questions) in the pause that follows, the original questioner comes back in, talking about faith in the sellers, which is fair enough given the admirable patience shown to my lengthy interjection.
However IMHO sticking it to Huw et al is secondary to protecting the Trust’s value in the shares. These buyers are not children led by the nose by the sellers, but hard headed businessmen who colluded with the sellers to exclude their main future partners from initial negotiations and agreements. This speaks of an arrogance and total disregard for the fans and their shareholding by both sides. It also does not bode well for the future when we have no real power to enforce any protections, so they may basically do as they wish.
IMHO the exact words and contradictions made in relation to my questions to Jason on the Shareholders agreement in this recorded meeting are of some significance. Surely they were obvious questions and were directly asked before?
In relation to other comments I specifically (well before sale completion) urged that the Trust write to the buyers, telling them that they were taking part in a sale not legally conducted, as the provisions of the Shareholders Agreement were not being adhered to. I had no doubt the buyers smart lawyers (and hence the buyers) already knew this as it was all over the forums and they would have been negligent not looking for issues there. I have no idea if the Trust did formally notify the buyers about this, but my intention was it would have cut dead any claim of being unaware.
Experience of Americans taking over significant businesses here would suggest that they are fastidious (and rightfully so) about any existing obligations that they would be buying into, especially those that would limit their control to run the business to their plans and advantage.
There seems a significant mismatch between this and the laisse faire attitude which when asked about the shareholder agreement ranged from
- “without getting into you know the details that that as best as I recall them, We were not aware of any other arrangement where Shareholders Agreement erm with any other parties”
- “It was represented to us that there was no shareholder agreement at the time that we came in to acquire the club”
- In response to question: are you saying you didn’t think there was a shareholders agreement at all - answered “yes”!
- When pressed once again to confirm they knew nothing about the Shareholder Agreement — “so we had heard rumblings that there were different agreements between the parties, we’d never seen the document”
- Then following a pause added — “We asked to see it”
Difficult to compute. You asked to see a document you did not know about and the details around which it seems you could not previously really remember. Also you are saying you did not see a copy, but had no problems pressing ahead with the sale without it.
Not buying it, and in those circumstances neither should you have been.
In fairness though I would thank Jason for answering my questions in so far as it was practical to pursue them in such a meeting — it was a far more enlightening and mannered response than I have enjoyed from our Trust in the past.
The Trust should represent the future of football in Swansea and it would be beyond negligent if the member’s serious concerns and circa £20 million (that could go a long way to ensuring the aims of the Trust) were thrown down the drain at the preference for a non speaking part at the top table.
IMHO any conflicts in the buyers statements should add support to the case for forced buyout at the original price paid to the sellers (funded by either or both, sellers and buyers, depending on their precise contribution to the prejudiced position they contrived to put the trust in vis a vie our shareholding and resultant reduction in power and saleability and thus value). We should formally press them on this and give them the opportunity to settle in full out of court, with the clear and certain intention to take legal action if a full and equitable settlement is not made.
Of course the members should decide on the sale, but should be given full and frank information on risks / rewards including the value of the sale and how it can be used to save the club in future v’s the very marginal influence we now have as shareholders (which may, to much the same net effect, be discharged as a fans group). We should consider the potential massive decrease in share value if we hold onto the shares; also the possibility of shrinking shareholding % via share dilution (even potentially concluding in forced buy out over time at much inferior terms). Both sides of the case should be clearly presented including by those that favour selling as the best option for the Trust and its fundamental aims. This would ensure fair representation from both sides.
All these issues clearly raised ad infinitum on the forums pre-sale, as were the serious limitations on any protections afforded by the Chairs dream target of 25%+ ownership, which was seen as a panacea by many (even being brought up again at this meeting). Most concerning, the vice chair pre-sale incorrectly disputed the fundamental weakness in the 25%+ ownership aim, even though it had been clearly pointed out that the majority owners could dilute our shares down again removing any protection the 25%+ holding afforded (even if we could achieve it). This misled fans into thinking 25% was an ongoing safe haven.
Note re share dilution
- The issuing of new shares (resulting in share dilution — i.e. a reduction in % of the company owned by the shareholders existing shares) is a valid method to create capital and an alternative to taking out loans.
- Given their holding / voting rights our new owners have the power without our approval to issue new shares and buy the large majority of them themselves.
- We may also buy a number of new shares in proportion to the percentage of our existing holding (meaning overall we would maintain our % shareholding) but need the funds to do this
- If we do not have the funds to do this (and currently we do not), our allocation may be bought by the new owners or others. The additional shares issued and bought by others would mean that although we owned the same number of shares as previously, they now equate to a smaller percentage of the company
- Over time if our shareholding % falls below a certain level it is possible we could be forcibly bought out if the majority holding wanted to do that for any reason |
A mate of mine tells me you were having a lovely laugh and a joke at the end the night anyway Sprout.
Nice guy is he?
That's so sweet. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 21:57 - Apr 12 with 2036 views | TheResurrection |
Sprats, evening old boy and hope you are well...
From your transcript and opinion from the forum it read to me that Phil, and I'm guessing as an extension of him, the Trust, were keen to avoid thorny questions about the takeover.
Why do you think that is?
Phil, Ux? I'm sure people would appreciate your reasons on this? |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:07 - Apr 12 with 2007 views | dameedna |
Well done so so the owners er are not sure about the 21 per cent and agreement |  | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:12 - Apr 12 with 1989 views | Starsky |
Lying 'investors', cheating sellout shareholders, disgraced fans representative, Mis firing Trust, crazy player recruitment system, under performing players and a manager who can't stop the rot.
Not much of our club left is there? |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Statement on 22:14 - Apr 12 with 1968 views | Darran |
| Trust Statement on 21:57 - Apr 12 by TheResurrection |
Sprats, evening old boy and hope you are well...
From your transcript and opinion from the forum it read to me that Phil, and I'm guessing as an extension of him, the Trust, were keen to avoid thorny questions about the takeover.
Why do you think that is?
Phil, Ux? I'm sure people would appreciate your reasons on this? |
Clive answered that above mun. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:14 - Apr 12 with 1974 views | NeathJack |
| Trust Statement on 21:57 - Apr 12 by TheResurrection |
Sprats, evening old boy and hope you are well...
From your transcript and opinion from the forum it read to me that Phil, and I'm guessing as an extension of him, the Trust, were keen to avoid thorny questions about the takeover.
Why do you think that is?
Phil, Ux? I'm sure people would appreciate your reasons on this? |
I would assume because they want to keep their powder as dry as possible for the assumed battle to come once the season ends?
That's just my assumption though. |  | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:16 - Apr 12 with 1952 views | Jackfath |
| Trust Statement on 22:12 - Apr 12 by Starsky |
Lying 'investors', cheating sellout shareholders, disgraced fans representative, Mis firing Trust, crazy player recruitment system, under performing players and a manager who can't stop the rot.
Not much of our club left is there? |
We've always got each other!
 |  |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:18 - Apr 12 with 1946 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Statement on 21:57 - Apr 12 by TheResurrection |
Sprats, evening old boy and hope you are well...
From your transcript and opinion from the forum it read to me that Phil, and I'm guessing as an extension of him, the Trust, were keen to avoid thorny questions about the takeover.
Why do you think that is?
Phil, Ux? I'm sure people would appreciate your reasons on this? |
Evening old girl, I believe ...
I am also bemused by that though.
I also remain bemused by the Trust reps not correcting them on the night. I appreciate the opinions on here expressed by some that it was better to avoid a 'difficulty' on the night, but it appears they had free ride that they frankly don't deserve. |  | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:19 - Apr 12 with 1935 views | TheResurrection |
| Trust Statement on 22:14 - Apr 12 by NeathJack |
I would assume because they want to keep their powder as dry as possible for the assumed battle to come once the season ends?
That's just my assumption though. |
So why have a forum in the first place where fans are bound to want answers? | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:21 - Apr 12 with 1922 views | NeathJack |
| Trust Statement on 22:19 - Apr 12 by TheResurrection |
So why have a forum in the first place where fans are bound to want answers? |
No idea tbh. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:28 - Apr 12 with 1886 views | TheResurrection |
| Trust Statement on 22:18 - Apr 12 by londonlisa2001 |
Evening old girl, I believe ...
I am also bemused by that though.
I also remain bemused by the Trust reps not correcting them on the night. I appreciate the opinions on here expressed by some that it was better to avoid a 'difficulty' on the night, but it appears they had free ride that they frankly don't deserve. |
Old girl?? Never?!!
I should have listened to the audio but i'm sure she'll not thank you for saying that!! | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:31 - Apr 12 with 1874 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Statement on 22:28 - Apr 12 by TheResurrection |
Old girl?? Never?!!
I should have listened to the audio but i'm sure she'll not thank you for saying that!! |
Lol. Funnily enough I thought that as I typed it, but you know what I meant  | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:33 - Apr 12 with 1854 views | Darran |
| Trust Statement on 22:28 - Apr 12 by TheResurrection |
Old girl?? Never?!!
I should have listened to the audio but i'm sure she'll not thank you for saying that!! |
You haven't listened to the audio?
Baffling. | |
| |
| Trust Statement on 22:34 - Apr 12 with 1856 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Statement on 22:19 - Apr 12 by TheResurrection |
So why have a forum in the first place where fans are bound to want answers? |
I suspect that when it was arranged, we didn't look like we'd be completely in the mess that we're in, and the expectation was that fans would want to ask about plans for next season, stadium expansion, naming rights, etc etc.
The more it looks like we're going down, the less anyone is interested in any of that.
That's just a guess though. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 22:42 - Apr 12 with 1828 views | Spratty |
Thanks guys ;)
From my POV I can only guess at the answers to the questions
Timing of this perhaps because the recording of the meeting was not released until later, then taking the time to go through it in detail. Or perhaps a more specific motive although goodness knows why.
As far as what Phil said, I wasn’t very happy because it felt like Phil was protecting the buyers and depriving us the opportunity to question the sellers on these important issues. I was glad these questions were still asked.
However I don’t like to prejudge as it is possible Phil gave the buyers his best assurance about guiding the meeting in order to get them to agree to attend (although strangely it seemed to me Jason wanted to get his version out there, he certainly wasn’t reticent).
Then there is the whole building bridges thing. So there are valid reasons that can be given in relation to attempting to be seen to be constructively moving forward and avoiding difficult questions, but for me that time has come and gone and hard questions need to be asked.
As I had given Jason a bit of a grilling I did go and very briefly shake hands with him after the meeting and say that although I was unhappy with many things, I would like to thank them for coming and him for answering my questions. Then we immediately left the meeting, in fact we were one of the first out of the car park. As Phil was stood right next to Jason perhaps I should have got them together and asked more questions whilst I was on a hot streak. |  | | |
| Trust Statement on 23:09 - Apr 12 with 1771 views | QJumpingJack |
Why haven't WalesOnline and BBC Wales picked up on this statement?
The Trust need to be on the front foot in the PR battle. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 23:38 - Apr 12 with 1723 views | NeathJack |
| Trust Statement on 23:09 - Apr 12 by QJumpingJack |
Why haven't WalesOnline and BBC Wales picked up on this statement?
The Trust need to be on the front foot in the PR battle. |
I asked the guy who did the original BBC article the same question in Twitter.
His response.....
All they've done is update the 2-3 day old story with a a couple of lines about the Trust statement.
A complete cop out imho. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 01:39 - Apr 13 with 1622 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust Statement on 18:12 - Apr 12 by Shaky |
Yup, there is no reason to assume the SHAG isn't valid except for the Trust twice seeking legal reassurance that it was, that the sellers tried to get the Trust to sign a piece of paper saying that it was invalid, and ultimately signed a legally binding document declaring that there is no such agreement!
Isn't the longstanding company lawyer who presumably drafted the original document also not on Team Jenkins? If that is the case that definitely gives them the inside track.
In any case this is all a fairly pointless distraction. Even if the SHAG is eventually held to be binding, it has no practical implication on legal proceedings whatsoever. It would merely serve to give the Trust the right of first refusal on shares they simply can not afford.
The only real implication of the Trust's statement is to call Levin out as a liar (at best dissembling under cover of lawyer weasel words) .
Which makes their quiet decision to hold fire on legal proceedings even more perplexing.
You and I disagree on most things, but one thing we are united in is the wish to move quickly toward legal action. So is pretty much everybody else, as far as I can see; I'm sorry, but WTF are the Trust doing here? |
Say the Shareholders Agreement did limit any one shareholder from acquiring more than 25% - and then there was a scenario where all shareholders wanted to sell to an acquirer - who would then say hold 51% controlling stake - what would be the mechanism of changing the shareholders agreement to allow the new owner - to now own greater than 25%?
Or alternatively the mechanism for 'ripping' up the old shareholders agreement and replacing it with a new one? To now reflect the company has a controlling shareholder.
The context of my questions are even if the shareholders agreement is very basic - isn't it still binding on the Yanks? They may not like it - as want a more sophisticated version to reflect today's environment - not one 20 years ago.
I assume they have a shareholders agreement between themselves and the selling shareholders who have residual stakes. How does this all work if 2 shareholders agreements are in place? Does one override the other?
So maybe the Shareholders Agreement doesn't have an effect on legal proceedings - but if legally enforceable don't the Yanks still have to abide by it - even though very basic? If it contains a Right of First Refusal does that override the new clauses on this in the New Articles?
I understand your points of :-
1. whether the original shareholders agreement was actually executed / signed? Hence HJ's team might be relying on it not being executed to argue it is invalid. Or something similar.
2. that 25% may have just been a gentleman's agreement and not written down in the Shareholders Agreement. However given no shareholder prior to the sale did own more than 25% - is that akin to demonstrating a legally enforceable 'verbal' agreement?
I have a similar view as Londonlisa on the Mel Nurse share buyback. The share buyback looked like a mechanism to ensure that all shareholders at the time increased their % stakes - in line with their existing pro rata holdings.
Instead of each shareholder at the time having to pay cash for their pro-rata share of Mel Nurse's 5% stake - they agreed and instructed the club to buy back the shares from Mel Nurse and cancel the shares. Hence their stakes all increased in proportion to their existing % holdings.
This on the face of it suggests that either a shareholders agreement was in place or a gentleman's agreement (which the Trust appeared to have honoured in good faith). If not - the Trust could have just bought the 5% outright from Mel Nurse. | | | |
| Trust Statement on 07:52 - Apr 13 with 1503 views | Private_Partz |
| Trust Statement on 23:38 - Apr 12 by NeathJack |
I asked the guy who did the original BBC article the same question in Twitter.
His response.....
All they've done is update the 2-3 day old story with a a couple of lines about the Trust statement.
A complete cop out imho. |
Am absolute shocker of a response. It sums up our pathetic media. Had the owners had something on the Trust they would have found space big time. This is a newsworthy issue and opens up a whole can of worms about who is lying. Ripe stuff for an ivestigative journalist....... If they existed in Wales.
SWEP I suspect would not have been much better but this WOL site is going to make matters much worse. |  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Trust Statement on 08:13 - Apr 13 with 1475 views | QJumpingJack |
It seems there is a bit of PR games going on.
Perhaps the story was given out on Monday night on the agreement that the Trust's response would be ignored? | | | |
| Trust Statement on 08:35 - Apr 13 with 1457 views | Nookiejack |
Re: The Yank's making an offer for 50% of the Trust's shares
When you take a look at Companies House Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan/Wife have been left with symmetrical 5% stakes. This does not equate to an offer of 50% for their stakes.
One may also speculate that there may be an agreement between them and the Yanks - for the Yanks to acquire the residual stakes at a later date - for example giving the Yank's time to get up to speed in respect of the operational running of the club (which you could argue is what they are doing through Pearlman).
It would also give selling shareholders a full exit in respect of their shares. Which would be difficult in future without an agreement like this.
So when the Yank's made the offer the Trust may have asked
1. Conduct due diligence on new owners
2. Asked for the Yank's to provide full details in respect of the full terms they offered to the selling shareholders. Why shouldn't the Trust have been offered the same terms?
This may be a minor point but given the Trust were not offered the same terms as the selling shareholders - isn't it another small piece of evidence that paints the full picture of unfair prejudice against the Trust? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
