| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 121690 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 19:28 - Jul 2 with 1959 views | monmouth |
A QC would never advise on how desirable or otherwise the content of a deal is, just on the legal aspects. The QC has merely advised that litigation should be the last resort should a deal acceptable to the Trust not be struck. Hence the vote. Basically, if the deal is acceptable to you, vote deal, if not, vote legal. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:31 - Jul 2 with 1960 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:26 - Jul 2 by UplandsJack |
I thought I read one board member say he had or at least been given the outline of it and another that he hadn't?
I could be wrong mind after all this thread is 24 pages long now... [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 19:26]
|
The Trust board at the moment.
From me to you, from you to me......
Just list pros and cons of the 3 options for fans to see. Without bias. Cant be hard surely. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:31 - Jul 2 with 1960 views | Whiterockin |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:14 - Jul 2 by cimlajack |
" Yet they state their Q.C. advises take the deal"
Bit of a leap there,my understanding is the Q.C.has nt expressed an opinion on the current deal.
Happy to be corrected. |
I thought the trust only found out about the deal on the table on the day of the meeting (Thursday). I also thought that the QC thought that legal action should only be taken as a last resort after negotiations. Has the trust board negotiated after this offer or just accepted it. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:58 - Jul 2 with 1912 views | harryhpalmer |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:04 - Jul 2 by UplandsJack |
As a side note and forgive me if my interpretation of the people mentioned is incorrect but is it just me or does anyone else find it strange that both Lisa & Shaky who sound like they know their apples from pears, seem to agree that legal action, though not ideal, is the way to go out of the two options put up by the trust. Yet they state their QC advises take the deal??. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 19:07]
|
The QC has advised to try and negotiate a deal, as it is far better than turning to litigation, as there are no guarantees, even if he thinks the case is a strong one.
It's not the QC who will make the decision but a judge, who may have a different interpretation of the law and facts. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:11 - Jul 2 with 1898 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:58 - Jul 2 by harryhpalmer |
The QC has advised to try and negotiate a deal, as it is far better than turning to litigation, as there are no guarantees, even if he thinks the case is a strong one.
It's not the QC who will make the decision but a judge, who may have a different interpretation of the law and facts. |
Has anyone of any note actually advised the Trust that the deal on the table is the best they can hope for ? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:14 - Jul 2 with 1893 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:31 - Jul 2 by Whiterockin |
I thought the trust only found out about the deal on the table on the day of the meeting (Thursday). I also thought that the QC thought that legal action should only be taken as a last resort after negotiations. Has the trust board negotiated after this offer or just accepted it. |
Nothing has been accepted - it can't be until after the members vote. This is not the first offer that we've had and represents quite an improvement on the first one.
And you are right about the QC - he has always advised that legal action should only be taken when all other options have been exhausted. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:18 - Jul 2 with 1883 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:14 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Nothing has been accepted - it can't be until after the members vote. This is not the first offer that we've had and represents quite an improvement on the first one.
And you are right about the QC - he has always advised that legal action should only be taken when all other options have been exhausted. |
Its the 2nd offer then? get back round the Table and tell them its not good enough. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:19 - Jul 2 with 1877 views | Smellyplumz |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:14 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Nothing has been accepted - it can't be until after the members vote. This is not the first offer that we've had and represents quite an improvement on the first one.
And you are right about the QC - he has always advised that legal action should only be taken when all other options have been exhausted. |
So exhaust the other options then ... ask for a much improved offer |  |
|
""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." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:38 - Jul 2 with 1831 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:14 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Nothing has been accepted - it can't be until after the members vote. This is not the first offer that we've had and represents quite an improvement on the first one.
And you are right about the QC - he has always advised that legal action should only be taken when all other options have been exhausted. |
What is the definition of " all other options have been exhausted".
That is vague advice from a QC. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:43 - Jul 2 with 1815 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:14 - Jul 2 by MattG |
Nothing has been accepted - it can't be until after the members vote. This is not the first offer that we've had and represents quite an improvement on the first one.
And you are right about the QC - he has always advised that legal action should only be taken when all other options have been exhausted. |
Could we members get a precis of the first offer to see how far the Merrycans have shifted?
As a minimum we should be aiming for exactly the same as the snide slimy sell out b'stards got.
Communication certainly hasn't been anywhere near its best throughout this whole affair.
A deal I'd be quite happy with is sell the majority of shares, keeping enough to have a director in the boardroom, purely and simply to keep the fans informed of what stupid deeds are about to happen.
18,000 paying customers baying for your blood makes for an uncomfortable experience in the ground and on the highlights programmes that are shown world wide |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:55 - Jul 2 with 1783 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:18 - Jul 2 by max936 |
Its the 2nd offer then? get back round the Table and tell them its not good enough. |
And Huws got to go as part of the deal. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:04 - Jul 2 with 1767 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:55 - Jul 2 by Darran |
And Huws got to go as part of the deal. |
I've come to the conclusion in my own mind after weighing things up, that the trust board do not wish for Huw Jenkins to be removed. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:05 - Jul 2 with 1762 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:55 - Jul 2 by Darran |
And Huws got to go as part of the deal. |
Can't see that happening unless the Merrycans want him gone Dar.
At the moment, when there is chanting, it's aimed at the slimy c**t so the yanks aren't made to feel uncomfy.
He's their target front man.
As sickening as that b'stard Dimwit and Capt Beaky are, they have shares plus the Yanks voting shares adds up to about 73+ percent against 21%
The Trust needs to make every fan attending games aware of whats happened (better late than never) so everyone may just join in the chanting.
If the snide slimy sell outs are that uncomfortable with the ground chanting at them, they may just think fug it and go enjoy their gains.
Although I really hope the Truffles give them at least 30 years of the sh1ts! | |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:21 - Jul 2 with 1727 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:55 - Jul 2 by Darran |
And Huws got to go as part of the deal. |
He's gonna stick like shit to a blanket, but yes either that or dilute his influence enough for him to say fukit and go, but I'd like nothing more than for him to be told to clear his desk and fukoff. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:26 - Jul 2 with 1718 views | max936 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:04 - Jul 2 by morningstar |
I've come to the conclusion in my own mind after weighing things up, that the trust board do not wish for Huw Jenkins to be removed. |
Why though ? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:31 - Jul 2 with 1707 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:26 - Jul 2 by max936 |
Why though ? |
With the Trust statement just seeming to show the pros of the deal and cons of legal action, rather than a balanced pros and cons of each option, I fear the Trust don't want their dirty washing airing in public.
No matter what effect it has on the Trust and fans of the club.
I really do hope I'm wrong | |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:41 - Jul 2 with 1690 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:26 - Jul 2 by max936 |
Why though ? |
Because no matter what he's done. The trust board still believe he is the best person to have as chairman of our club. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:42 - Jul 2 with 1687 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:31 - Jul 2 by Dewi1jack |
With the Trust statement just seeming to show the pros of the deal and cons of legal action, rather than a balanced pros and cons of each option, I fear the Trust don't want their dirty washing airing in public.
No matter what effect it has on the Trust and fans of the club.
I really do hope I'm wrong |
Well I'd happily see the back of him. Not that that's Trust policy, for the record.
That condition was always going to bring untold grief. Of the various conspiracy theories, that the Trust is secretly backing Huw Jenkins at all costs is my new favourite though.
As for the statement, it did state what the potential benefit of legal action is, assuming a case is won of course. A full sale of the shares and 20+ in the bank. That is the benefit. Maybe there could be some elaboration on that, maybe it needs writing in bold with more emphasis i dunno but I'm not seeing the major omissions. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:51 - Jul 2 with 1656 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:18 - Jul 2 by max936 |
Its the 2nd offer then? get back round the Table and tell them its not good enough. |
Saying it's the second offer would be inaccurate. There's been negotiations over the last two months. This is the first point we've got to an offer the Trust board could recommend in favour of.
But hey, if a better offer comes up as a result of the changes reaction in some sections, then I'd be absolutely delighted. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:53 - Jul 2 with 1652 views | E20Jack |
Spent time and money seeking out a QC to tell them they have a strong case...seek a second opinion in the hope that someone else would contradict the original finding - which they don't, and echo the fact that the legal case is strong... then they go all overboard forcing the other option on the electorate. Why bother with the 30k QC opinions if you decide to go against it. Did you really think a QC would say it is an unlosable case? They don't do that.
The case is strong. The reward will protect the future of the club. No other option does that = no brainer. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:56 - Jul 2 with 1641 views | Pokerface |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:31 - Jul 2 by Dewi1jack |
With the Trust statement just seeming to show the pros of the deal and cons of legal action, rather than a balanced pros and cons of each option, I fear the Trust don't want their dirty washing airing in public.
No matter what effect it has on the Trust and fans of the club.
I really do hope I'm wrong |
What dirty washing ? Skeleton in closet ?
Tell us more.
Would explain alot mind. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:57 - Jul 2 with 1637 views | Nookiejack |
A question for Uxbridge.
If the Bookies have has down as 9/4 to be relegated this season = 30%................... then that means there is a 70% chance of us staying up.
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/relegation
What therefore are the cumulative probability of us being relegated within 5 seasons?
Is it something like 1 - (70% * 70% * 70% * 70% * 70%) = 83%?
If it is something like that Trust will be running quite a risk in accepting the Yank's offer? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:58 - Jul 2 with 1636 views | Borojack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:42 - Jul 2 by Uxbridge |
Well I'd happily see the back of him. Not that that's Trust policy, for the record.
That condition was always going to bring untold grief. Of the various conspiracy theories, that the Trust is secretly backing Huw Jenkins at all costs is my new favourite though.
As for the statement, it did state what the potential benefit of legal action is, assuming a case is won of course. A full sale of the shares and 20+ in the bank. That is the benefit. Maybe there could be some elaboration on that, maybe it needs writing in bold with more emphasis i dunno but I'm not seeing the major omissions. |
Just a quick question am I right in thinking there are about 1800 trust members.
And our average home crowd is about 18000.
Now I have no problem with it going to a vote.
But if there is a vote for legal action there is a chance it could turn nasty off the pitch which would be detrimental on
It.
How will the 16000 fans who are non trust members feel about this.
Just wondered what your view was |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:03 - Jul 2 with 1615 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:48 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
In that scenario, there would be zero value in the tag along clause. I'll ask Dai anyway but I can't believe that is something that's insurmountable.
In terms of the value piece, again this comes back to the buyer doesn't it. I'm not arguing they don't benefit by including it, however I would argue that they want the drag clause because it gives them the potential power to do so, which a future buyer may want. They're not going to implement it if the buyer says "hold on, this minority shareholder is going to cause me some serious grief if they're forced out against their will, I don't want that" are they?
I would have loved tag along rights without drag along though. |
That was my point Ux.
If the membership vote to accept the deal, please could I urge that the details of the tag and drag rights are really closely looked at and that the assumption is made that ANY loophole will be exploited.
This very issue (tag rights in a subsidiary being circumvented by sale of a parent company in Delaware) came up in the Hollinger International Case against Conrad Black and the minority shareholders lost that part of the case (I looked it up). | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:10 - Jul 2 with 1585 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:41 - Jul 2 by morningstar |
Because no matter what he's done. The trust board still believe he is the best person to have as chairman of our club. |
Best to ignore that one is it Ux? Because i KNOW it to be true.  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
