| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 121543 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:18 - Jun 30 with 2012 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:12 - Jun 30 by Nookiejack |
For those who want the Trust to maintain a stake that would be a bad outcome.
However for those that want revenge re Huw Jenkins that would be a good option.
The Yanks don't appear to have the funds to buyout the Trust and they hold a warranty over the selling shareholders that no original shareholders agreement existed.
This would mean that the selling shareholders would effectively have to buyout the Trust's stake.
You would assume on same terms as other shareholders - the Trust would therefore sell 68% of 21%.
This would leave 32% of 21% = 6.72% and still the Trust would have Set on the Board (5% required).
The Trust would also be able to sell the residual 6.72% on the same terms as the selling shareholders residual stakes.
The selling shareholders having to cough up 68% of 21% (assume that is equivalent to £21m) = £14.28m under the warranty - would be best form of revenge for a number of posters. (The Yanks don't appear to have the funds available to buyout the Trust on same terma as selling shareholders).
Your post does indicate though that you don't really want to sell the Trusts stake - which I understand - however it does allow the Yanks to make a low ball offer - compared to the selling shareholders.
That simply is not right - Huw Jenkins should have ensured the fans were not low balled - he is our chairman. |
What I want is really not relevant but as stated before we said right on day 1 that we may be prepared to sell (indeed we said that before we even met the Americans on the morning of the Chelsea game)
I am going now (as I promised) but there are some assumptions in your post that I am not sure are right - our understanding is that if UP was proved then the buyers would have to buy and not the sellers and the likely outcome would be a complete sale not partial
Remember not all shareholders sold 68% of their stake... |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:28 - Jun 30 with 1977 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:12 - Jun 30 by Alarch |
"We" = those of us not on the Trust board.
"Win" = The view of many on this board. Winning = a removal/unseating/dismemberment/beheading of one or all if the sellers. |
Winning for me doesn't mean that. In fact, it's a total irrelevance and a distraction.
Funnily enough, if was one of the Americans I'd be really pleased to see the focus on the irrelevant bit as it distracts from the important bit. I might even think about doing it deliberately if I was putting a deal together to achieve exactly that effect... |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:36 - Jun 30 with 1950 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:28 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Winning for me doesn't mean that. In fact, it's a total irrelevance and a distraction.
Funnily enough, if was one of the Americans I'd be really pleased to see the focus on the irrelevant bit as it distracts from the important bit. I might even think about doing it deliberately if I was putting a deal together to achieve exactly that effect... |
Expand Lisa. Always interesting perspective.
What I find amusing and baffling is that the Trust speak as if they have won major battles- we have 2 on the board, we got Clement in, We have a voice blah blah.
Being played like friggin puppets.
The sale sounds illegal yet NOTHING. No court case. Yanks hands must be raw with all the high fiving. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:36 - Jun 30 with 1949 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:32 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
That long term protection was referring at that point in time very much to protection against dilution. We won't be offered that and at no point do we have a legal case to make that happen
Here we have tried by taking the drag and tag to ensure that we have the same value as the Americans on any future sale - its nowhere near the protection that we wanted but it is a protection
Add to that a guaranteed £5m+ with a potential to effectively double that and we have a rainy day fund that can assist with protection in the future if it was decided to invest that back into the club in the event of share purchase. Which somehow in this thread has now been taken as the reason we are recommending the deal.
Personally I wouldn't vote for that I would retain the money and use it when it is more effective.
Which reminds me, NeathJack has been asking about what we could do with the money. In terms of the capital it really should only be used for future club investment or a rainy day fund - that was the advice we were given last time based on our constitution and rules.
What we haven't looked into is what we could do with the interest/earnings off that income and where we could invest that. Until we know it is coming then I dont see the point in spending time pursuing that angle when we need to clarify the viewpoint first
Back to your point we haven't got the protection that we were referring to - we were hopeful at that time that we could get it somehow legally but the advice is saying no on that. |
The drag rights would need to be very carefully drafted as I referred to earlier, and even then you lose all say in who the shares are eventually sold to, don't forget.
The issue I have with the £5m is I can't see it ever being enough to save the club. Leyton Orient just went for £4m and they had been relegated from the league and were on the verge of bankruptcy. £21m is a different story. I could be persuaded that £11m was worthwhile to avoid the court case if it comes with tag rights, but we are giving up a lot for an amount that we couldn't achieve anything with. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:42 - Jun 30 with 1919 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:18 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
What I want is really not relevant but as stated before we said right on day 1 that we may be prepared to sell (indeed we said that before we even met the Americans on the morning of the Chelsea game)
I am going now (as I promised) but there are some assumptions in your post that I am not sure are right - our understanding is that if UP was proved then the buyers would have to buy and not the sellers and the likely outcome would be a complete sale not partial
Remember not all shareholders sold 68% of their stake... |
Thanks for the response Phil
Maybe one for tomorrow - my assumption is that the Buyers would have to buy the Trust's stake - however if the selling shareholders have given them a warranty - then they could force the selling shareholders to then buy the Trusts shares off them.
So in a scenario where the Yanks have to pay £21m for the Trusts entire stake - the Yanks then use their warranty to force the selling shareholders to pay £21m to the Yanks for the Trust's stake.
This assumes the Yanks don't have funds available - which you start to wonder given they seem to want the Trust to reinvest an element of the £5m proceeds in stadium expansion.
Take your point that not all selling shareholders sold 68%. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:44 - Jun 30 with 1916 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:36 - Jun 30 by Pokerface |
Expand Lisa. Always interesting perspective.
What I find amusing and baffling is that the Trust speak as if they have won major battles- we have 2 on the board, we got Clement in, We have a voice blah blah.
Being played like friggin puppets.
The sale sounds illegal yet NOTHING. No court case. Yanks hands must be raw with all the high fiving. |
The only focus of everyone should be the three options open to the Trust. Which of those best suits the long term aims of the Trust. The stuff with Jenkins is neither here nor there and yet it's what the majority of posts have focused on.
I'm being slightly mischievous by suggesting that the Americans have done that deliberately. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:45 - Jun 30 with 1911 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:36 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
The drag rights would need to be very carefully drafted as I referred to earlier, and even then you lose all say in who the shares are eventually sold to, don't forget.
The issue I have with the £5m is I can't see it ever being enough to save the club. Leyton Orient just went for £4m and they had been relegated from the league and were on the verge of bankruptcy. £21m is a different story. I could be persuaded that £11m was worthwhile to avoid the court case if it comes with tag rights, but we are giving up a lot for an amount that we couldn't achieve anything with. |
Exactly, the money is worthless! Let's bring em to book and show them who we are! Win or lose, we are the fans of OUR club, and we will not be trod upon by anyone. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:47 - Jun 30 with 1897 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:42 - Jun 30 by Nookiejack |
Thanks for the response Phil
Maybe one for tomorrow - my assumption is that the Buyers would have to buy the Trust's stake - however if the selling shareholders have given them a warranty - then they could force the selling shareholders to then buy the Trusts shares off them.
So in a scenario where the Yanks have to pay £21m for the Trusts entire stake - the Yanks then use their warranty to force the selling shareholders to pay £21m to the Yanks for the Trust's stake.
This assumes the Yanks don't have funds available - which you start to wonder given they seem to want the Trust to reinvest an element of the £5m proceeds in stadium expansion.
Take your point that not all selling shareholders sold 68%. |
Exactly, they give the 5 mill in one hand and take a portion back in the other, I know I sound like I'm against this because I really want the sell-outs out, but I really don't see this being a good deal irrespective of what I want. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:52 - Jun 30 with 1871 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Have the Trust costed legal action and does it have enough money to see it through to the bitter end?
We can be sure that the club will drag this out as long as they possibly can. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:54 - Jun 30 with 1868 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:44 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
The only focus of everyone should be the three options open to the Trust. Which of those best suits the long term aims of the Trust. The stuff with Jenkins is neither here nor there and yet it's what the majority of posts have focused on.
I'm being slightly mischievous by suggesting that the Americans have done that deliberately. |
Thanks. I agree. Huw is a red herring.
Nothing would surprise me with tactics being used.
Anyone taking the yanks for fools or thinking we have a great deal... no.
I am gutted I have no faith in the Trust. Well meaning and hardworking , yes. But right people for the job, unfortunately no.
Even Phil using Legend Curtis as a profile photo gets my goat. Thats how low my faith in Trust has fallen. Cant help it. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:02 - Jul 1 with 1852 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:47 - Jun 30 by max936 |
Exactly, they give the 5 mill in one hand and take a portion back in the other, I know I sound like I'm against this because I really want the sell-outs out, but I really don't see this being a good deal irrespective of what I want. |
Yes have they asked all the selling shareholders to reinvest an element of their proceeds in stadium expansion.
The fans are being treated with contempt.
The Trust should have received exactly the same offer as the selling shareholders.
Why not?
They are relying on fact that Trust doesn't really want to sell (which is understandable).
However a chairman should ensure that all shareholders received the same offer. Huw Jenkins did not do this.
A chairman should also ensure that all shareholders were notified of a proposed change in the Articles - again Huw Jenkins did not do this.
The Yanks should now make same offer for the Trusts shares as the selling shareholders received.
The Trust can then decide how much of a stake they want to retain.
If not legal action must be taken. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:03 - Jul 1 with 1845 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:54 - Jun 30 by Pokerface |
Thanks. I agree. Huw is a red herring.
Nothing would surprise me with tactics being used.
Anyone taking the yanks for fools or thinking we have a great deal... no.
I am gutted I have no faith in the Trust. Well meaning and hardworking , yes. But right people for the job, unfortunately no.
Even Phil using Legend Curtis as a profile photo gets my goat. Thats how low my faith in Trust has fallen. Cant help it. |
There's a Trust election soon. Put yourself forward. We need a strong voice you sound like that strong voice. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:12 - Jul 1 with 1831 views | Alarch |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:28 - Jun 30 by londonlisa2001 |
Winning for me doesn't mean that. In fact, it's a total irrelevance and a distraction.
Funnily enough, if was one of the Americans I'd be really pleased to see the focus on the irrelevant bit as it distracts from the important bit. I might even think about doing it deliberately if I was putting a deal together to achieve exactly that effect... |
So you agree with me?
There are folk here who are focused on the impossible. Just trying to focus their minds on what is on offer. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:22 - Jul 1 with 1818 views | Nookiejack |
Didn't the Yanks also soon after their acquisition off the selling shareholders - offer to buy 10% of the Trust's 21% stake - but then withdrew the offer after the Trust requested further information?
The current offer on the table seems to be much worse - in that they are only offering to buy 5% immediately then 0.5% a year for 5 years depending on staying in PL. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:34 - Jul 1 with 1806 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:12 - Jul 1 by Alarch |
So you agree with me?
There are folk here who are focused on the impossible. Just trying to focus their minds on what is on offer. |
I agree that nothing the Trust does will have an immediate impact on Jenkins.
Doesn't affect any decision either which should be judged outside that point. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 01:38 - Jul 1 with 1765 views | Starsky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:12 - Jul 1 by Alarch |
So you agree with me?
There are folk here who are focused on the impossible. Just trying to focus their minds on what is on offer. |
It's like... Jenkins deeds never happened in your world aye. |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 05:41 - Jul 1 with 1696 views | NOTRAC |
Can I say first that I detest Huw Jenkins.I detest the way that he has been dishonourable in his dealings with the Trust and in numerous ways with past managers and players.
I cannot understand why he wants to remain in his present position..With £6m plus already in his pocket, I would have thought that after the way he handled the sale, he would have wanted to disappear and enjoy his gains as far away from the Liberty as possible. The fact that he is still there together with his friends Morgan ,Dineen etc, either suggests that he is power mad,exceptionally greedy, or is it because he cannot leave as he might want to.In other words is he tied to the post by a contract with the Americans which was part of the share deal?
No action by the Trust can directly lead to Jenkins dismissal.
The court case ,if successful would lead to full compensation for shares,not the dismissal of Jenkins. It is not a criminal case, purely a civil case for financial damages.
It appears to be a case where the losers would be the new owners, not the previous shareholders.
It is the new owners who would have to pay full compensation.
To get rid of Jenkins therefore would not happen if the case went to Court.
It might happen if the Trust used the need for his dismissal as one of the main levers to stop the case going to court.
.As soon as the members pass the majority to take it to Court then proceedings begin.
However it is quite possible that at that point and right up to a court decision ,haggling begins, concessions are made.
How would the Trust deal with that.Would they have to consult the full membership each time?
Would any further concessions such as Jenkins dismissal mean that the members have to be reconsulted?
The situation regarding the vote needs perhaps to cover this. [Post edited 1 Jul 2017 5:57]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:19 - Jul 1 with 1667 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:47 - Jun 30 by max936 |
Exactly, they give the 5 mill in one hand and take a portion back in the other, I know I sound like I'm against this because I really want the sell-outs out, but I really don't see this being a good deal irrespective of what I want. |
Just the point of order though "they only take it back with the other" if you - as members - elect that is what you want to do if/when that comes to the table. Will be written into the agreement as such. It's not a guarantee | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:21 - Jul 1 with 1667 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:14 - Jun 30 by Swanzay |
Irrelevant of what happens, you can certainly hold your head high, thank you for all your hard work in trying to ensure Swansea City FC is a great and special club.
Doffs cap! |
You wear a cap when you read Planet Swans? That's quite interesting 
Thanks though - only do what anyone in my position would do, was always (as people on here will testify) someone who wanted to make a difference rather than tell those who were doing what I would have done in their position
Actually that's probably how I ended up on the Trust board in the first place as I was a keyboard warrior in the early days  | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:25 - Jul 1 with 1662 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:22 - Jul 1 by Nookiejack |
Didn't the Yanks also soon after their acquisition off the selling shareholders - offer to buy 10% of the Trust's 21% stake - but then withdrew the offer after the Trust requested further information?
The current offer on the table seems to be much worse - in that they are only offering to buy 5% immediately then 0.5% a year for 5 years depending on staying in PL. |
An interesting point and I think it came up elsewhere yesterday at some point
The offer was a simple "Buy up to half at a fair and reasonable price" - you can make an assumption that is in one go or you can assume it may have had some caveats included that may not be dissimilar to what we have now which is effectively an offer for up to half
We don't know what that offer looked like because we asked for what the fair and reasonable price statement meant.
It could have been lower terms then we have now. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:06 - Jul 1 with 1581 views | E20Jack |
The deal on offer is pointless. £5m cannot achieve anything.
I would renegotiate for a 10-15% immediate sale. If that is refused:-
Legal action and a complete sale should be pursued.
We have been prejudiced, we hold the cards. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:15 - Jul 1 with 1571 views | Shaky |
Remember Phil, if you're not prepared to walk away they will walk all over you.
Despite the Trust holding all the cards in terms of the legal position, that is quite clearly what is happening here.
L8ters. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:35 - Jul 1 with 1547 views | E20Jack |
It does appear the Trust have a severe lack of negotiating nouse. But they are volunteers at the end of the day so there is no blame or fault. It is just so frustrating that it seems that whatever offer they get it is accepted as an offer and discussed before a decision on it. Why not negotiate the best possible offer and then relay that? I refuse to believe the current deal on offer is the best the Trust could be offered in the situation it finds itself (obvious strong legal case).
Someone within the Trust needs to step up to the plate and take these negotiations head on. If there is nobody to fulfill that brief then employ a specialist on a project basis to get the best possible deal. If the best they will offer is this pathetic deal then we should have no qualms in taking this to court where we would likely get £21m+.
It seems the Trust want to do all they can to continue having what they feel is a voice within the club. But the Americans will only listen when it suits them, ticket prices have not even been able to be changed for a friendly so I question the strength of that voice.
So to exchange the future safety of the club (£15m+ in the bank) in order to retain a non existent voice at boardroom level doesn't cut it for me. The choice is now simple - legal action to force a complete sale and leave them get on with it, we will pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong but hopefully this time with 100% fan ownership. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
