| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 121305 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 11:54 - Jul 4 with 1816 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 06:37 - Jul 4 by Shaky |
Well I must say I feel more comfortable after you posted that.
If as previously seemed to be the case you didn't have serious reservations about the drag-along rights, it suggested to me you either didn't understand what it meant or had some kind of hidden agenda.
As such I find your doubts reassuring and suggest to me you are open to further arguments that I'll try to make perhaps this weekend, time permitting.
However, right now I'd like to dispute the received wisdom that litigation will lead to major long term upheaval for the club. Yes it will take a long time, but the case itself won't take more than a few weeks at the most, and the primary reason for the delay is there is a significant waiting list for cases to reach the High Court (last I heard in the region of 2 years).
During that time nothing will happen, no lawyers fees will rack up, and there will be nothing to report in the press. The greatest danger is boredom!
In the interim would Kaplan try to kick the Trust off the board? No. Would Pearlman cancel the meetings with the Trust? I honestly doubt it, and I'd also take this opportunity to challenge the notion that selling the Trust's stake ends its influence with the club; the voice of the supporters will always get a hearing with any half-decent management. Even Tan has come round on that point, I believe! |
We're getting into unknown territory here, however if we want to look at how the relationships between the club and the Trust will work if it didn't have a stake in the club, then I think we can get an idea of that from elsewhere.
The Swans are pretty unique, especially in a Premier League sense, in that we retain a stake however many other PL clubs have supporters trusts. Our mutual friend Dai is on the board of this group of Trusts, and deals with them on a very regular basis. None of those have the level of interaction that SCST has with SCFC today, not even close. Believe it or not, SCST is the poster child for these organisations.
I would say the main reason for that is because the Trust holds a significant shareholding in the club. If that shareholding goes, there's absolutely nothing to compel the majority owners to have any relationship with the Trust. They could quite easily decide to form their own methods of fan engagement.
In the interim between now and any court case, then that can only be messy. I'm not going to dispute your lead time of 2 years, primarily because we don't know, however it's certainly many months away at the very least. It could indeed be years. In the meantime, I would say it would be perfectly understandable that relationships can't be maintained as they are. We all know the most likely outcome of a successful legal action is a forced sale of the SCST shareholding, so to what end, for the Americans, is it worth continuing the existing relationship in the meantime?
I would anticipate it very likely that communication would be down to the bare minimum until that process is concluded. I would expect the Trust would maintain its board privileges in the meantime, however as board meetings are very few and far between I'm not sure that's going to mean a whole lot without that continued engagement. As has been noted often on here, there's nothing in law that's compelling the majority owners to engage with the Trust to the level it is now, it's a result of the relationship that has been developed since the turn of the year. If legal action is taken, that could only have a massive impact on that.
I think your example of Tan is a quite plausible one. Engagement has been farcical there. A couple of fans forums, populated by a few selected "fans leaders". The very idea of an open fans forum has never come close to being in legoland. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:58 - Jul 4 with 1799 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:47 - Jul 4 by Algorfajack |
Apart from that game pricing, I can't recall anything over the last 7 months that has come as a total surprise to the Trust.
Is information withheld? It doesn't seem that way at least - the Trust has sight of the financials, has regular meetings with the key people at the club, is engaged in the decision making process.
So, obviously not engaged in all the decision making then? |
So one decision when the Trust wasn't consulted is proof that the Trust isn't consulted? It shouldn't have happened but it was more down to the fact that certain people were unavailable for their regular meetings than some sort of conspiracy. The issue was most certainly raised, it's been promised it won't happen again, and that'll be judged accordingly. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:01 - Jul 4 with 1790 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:51 - Jul 4 by Darran |
So if Huw Jenkins gets run over by a bus tomorrow morning they lose all their money because the club folds then?
What load of bollox. (From them not you) |
Heh. I doubt it's quite that simple - I doubt they're arguing he's the only man for the job - but he's certainly their choice for it. Ultimately, they could get rid of him tomorrow if they wanted to. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:04 - Jul 4 with 1785 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:54 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
We're getting into unknown territory here, however if we want to look at how the relationships between the club and the Trust will work if it didn't have a stake in the club, then I think we can get an idea of that from elsewhere.
The Swans are pretty unique, especially in a Premier League sense, in that we retain a stake however many other PL clubs have supporters trusts. Our mutual friend Dai is on the board of this group of Trusts, and deals with them on a very regular basis. None of those have the level of interaction that SCST has with SCFC today, not even close. Believe it or not, SCST is the poster child for these organisations.
I would say the main reason for that is because the Trust holds a significant shareholding in the club. If that shareholding goes, there's absolutely nothing to compel the majority owners to have any relationship with the Trust. They could quite easily decide to form their own methods of fan engagement.
In the interim between now and any court case, then that can only be messy. I'm not going to dispute your lead time of 2 years, primarily because we don't know, however it's certainly many months away at the very least. It could indeed be years. In the meantime, I would say it would be perfectly understandable that relationships can't be maintained as they are. We all know the most likely outcome of a successful legal action is a forced sale of the SCST shareholding, so to what end, for the Americans, is it worth continuing the existing relationship in the meantime?
I would anticipate it very likely that communication would be down to the bare minimum until that process is concluded. I would expect the Trust would maintain its board privileges in the meantime, however as board meetings are very few and far between I'm not sure that's going to mean a whole lot without that continued engagement. As has been noted often on here, there's nothing in law that's compelling the majority owners to engage with the Trust to the level it is now, it's a result of the relationship that has been developed since the turn of the year. If legal action is taken, that could only have a massive impact on that.
I think your example of Tan is a quite plausible one. Engagement has been farcical there. A couple of fans forums, populated by a few selected "fans leaders". The very idea of an open fans forum has never come close to being in legoland. |
But by conceding the 'Drag rights' you have given up stake in the club anyway.
It's just a matter of time until the Yanks take up the Drag rights (if new buyer wants 100% stake in club) - it might be 3-5 years or it might be as soon as Trust signs off the Yank's offer - if Yanks had a buyer all lined up for example.
Ironically if you want more short term influence it is better to take the legal action - if it is likely to take 2 years to go to the High Court. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:14 - Jul 4 with 1760 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:04 - Jul 4 by Nookiejack |
But by conceding the 'Drag rights' you have given up stake in the club anyway.
It's just a matter of time until the Yanks take up the Drag rights (if new buyer wants 100% stake in club) - it might be 3-5 years or it might be as soon as Trust signs off the Yank's offer - if Yanks had a buyer all lined up for example.
Ironically if you want more short term influence it is better to take the legal action - if it is likely to take 2 years to go to the High Court. |
That's simply not true. With a full sale, which legal action may or may not bring depending on it's success, then the Trust definitely is out. With the part sale, then the Trust is involved until there is a sale. Beyond that, then yes it is quite possible. But it is not certain.
Your last sentence is nonsense though. There is absolutely no indication, and little likelihood, that the Americans will look to flip in the immediate future. The very offer we're looking at has staged payments over 5 years. They're looking at stadium expansion, taking over the lease. All indications are that they are not planning to go anywhere in the next 24 months.
I don't like the drag along clause. However to say it means less involvement than legal action is literally the most misleading thing anyone has written on this thread, and that includes anything about Jenkins. [Post edited 4 Jul 2017 12:20]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:53 - Jul 4 with 1686 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:14 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
That's simply not true. With a full sale, which legal action may or may not bring depending on it's success, then the Trust definitely is out. With the part sale, then the Trust is involved until there is a sale. Beyond that, then yes it is quite possible. But it is not certain.
Your last sentence is nonsense though. There is absolutely no indication, and little likelihood, that the Americans will look to flip in the immediate future. The very offer we're looking at has staged payments over 5 years. They're looking at stadium expansion, taking over the lease. All indications are that they are not planning to go anywhere in the next 24 months.
I don't like the drag along clause. However to say it means less involvement than legal action is literally the most misleading thing anyone has written on this thread, and that includes anything about Jenkins. [Post edited 4 Jul 2017 12:20]
|
I totally disagree in my view you are being misleading.
Your argument is that by accepting the offer you maintain influence.
However both options mean that the Trust sells its stake. I will concede your point that a new buyer may not want to buy 100% of the shares - but why would they want the hassle of a minority Supporters Trust as a shareholder. Look at the hassle the Yanks currently have.
By conceding the 'Drag' rights it makes the Yanks shares more attractive to buyers - so a new buyer might come along and offer them a deal which meets their IRR hurdle returns - they then sell and rather than stadium expansion.
So the decision on which option to choose is not one related to 'influence'. Both options mean the Trust swlla its stake.
So in my view you shouldn't keep referring to influence. That is what is misleading and many members will feel misled when the Yanks do take up the 'Drag' rights.
The decision again in my view is about :-
1. how likely Trust thinks it will win in court (it could receive £21m to £23m)
verses
2. taking the £5m and likelihood of relegation (£5m may then be all Trust receives).
If there is 75% to 90% chance of winning in court for example and say 83% chance of being relegated in 5 years - then the decision should be to take legal action.
If the Yanks put more upfront money on the table and they concede the 'drag' rights then that changes the basis for the decision. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:55 - Jul 4 with 1680 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| Interesting Trust Email on 04:53 - Jul 4 by dameedna |
Trust negotiated a deal.
Not everyone trusts this offer or understands the deal.
Members being asked to vote to accept or not.
If not accepted either legal or negotiate further.
5m offered to trust, trust keeps an advisory role and sight of finances.
The trust could lose and cannot afford litigation if loses loses shirt pants socks.
Debate on QC opinion and requests on disclosure of opinion.
Trust members committing hours of voluntary work.
Confusion over Chairmans position which is a sideshow.
Real world power broking.
Undercurrrents about the biggest supporter in the land.
Board failure to recognise some aspects of the support. Timing of striking a deal in the off season.
Timing and cost of litigation. |
thank you very much
what a f@cking mess |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:22 - Jul 4 with 1629 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:53 - Jul 4 by Nookiejack |
I totally disagree in my view you are being misleading.
Your argument is that by accepting the offer you maintain influence.
However both options mean that the Trust sells its stake. I will concede your point that a new buyer may not want to buy 100% of the shares - but why would they want the hassle of a minority Supporters Trust as a shareholder. Look at the hassle the Yanks currently have.
By conceding the 'Drag' rights it makes the Yanks shares more attractive to buyers - so a new buyer might come along and offer them a deal which meets their IRR hurdle returns - they then sell and rather than stadium expansion.
So the decision on which option to choose is not one related to 'influence'. Both options mean the Trust swlla its stake.
So in my view you shouldn't keep referring to influence. That is what is misleading and many members will feel misled when the Yanks do take up the 'Drag' rights.
The decision again in my view is about :-
1. how likely Trust thinks it will win in court (it could receive £21m to £23m)
verses
2. taking the £5m and likelihood of relegation (£5m may then be all Trust receives).
If there is 75% to 90% chance of winning in court for example and say 83% chance of being relegated in 5 years - then the decision should be to take legal action.
If the Yanks put more upfront money on the table and they concede the 'drag' rights then that changes the basis for the decision. |
It really does need repeating that your percentages are completely made up. They are your perception, nothing more. I disagree with both of them.
Both options DO NOT mean the Trust sells it stake. Actually, neither guarantee it, if we're being accurate here.
The legal route will only result in a full sale if a) legal action is successful, and b) the judge determines that the correct course of action is a full sale. Neither of those things are actually guaranteed. We believe the odds are in our favour on the former, however there is a very real chance that the case would not be won. I hope i never have to refer back to this thread in the result of an unsuccessful legal case, but I could never be accused of misleading that legal action could not turn out as we want. On the latter, it is the most likely scenario that a judge would compel a full sale, but that is not actually certain either. There are a whole host of other potential awards, one of which may be a part sale anyway.
If the deal is agreed, then both sides have the option to involve the Trust in a future sale. However that only happens if one of them makes it happen. It doesn't happen if the Trust is against the deal and the future buyer doesn't want to take that PR hit for example. You're right, they might force it. We saw last year that potential buyers aren't always fully aware of the dynamics in play - given the press coverage this year, lack of awareness may not be as explainable in the future - so it may not be the factor we'd like it to be. However, and you seem to be missing this point, might is not the same thing as will. One is uncertain, the other is certain. The drag along clause simply does not guarantee the Trust will not have a stake in the result of any future sale, it means it might not ... for at least two possible reasons, one of which being it's not what the Trust members want, at that time. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:33 - Jul 4 with 1588 views | Starsky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:38 - Jul 4 by Shaky |
Interesting question.
Overhanging litigation would likely put an effective halt to any attempt to sell the club via a controlling interest in the US LLC holding company.
In purely financial terms it wouldn't make much difference if an acquiror were committed to buying 100% of the club, but then again the Trust might withdraw leaving them without the target level of ownership.
In any case it introduces a considerable level of uncertainty and financial risk that any potential acquiror would certainly think twice about.
Given the lengths Team Kaplan have gone to give them maximum flexibility of action, there is no doubt they would be very, very unhappy with such a situation.
On the other hand for the Trust it is piling on more negotiating leverage! |
Interesting point from your last sentence...
By going legal and then waiting 2 years for the court case. There's every chance the trust could receive better treatment from the Americans, than if we'd taken the deal and then possibly becoming vulnerable after the sale of shares.
And as you say, plenty of time to receive improved deals to cancel the court case. |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:39 - Jul 4 with 1573 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:22 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
It really does need repeating that your percentages are completely made up. They are your perception, nothing more. I disagree with both of them.
Both options DO NOT mean the Trust sells it stake. Actually, neither guarantee it, if we're being accurate here.
The legal route will only result in a full sale if a) legal action is successful, and b) the judge determines that the correct course of action is a full sale. Neither of those things are actually guaranteed. We believe the odds are in our favour on the former, however there is a very real chance that the case would not be won. I hope i never have to refer back to this thread in the result of an unsuccessful legal case, but I could never be accused of misleading that legal action could not turn out as we want. On the latter, it is the most likely scenario that a judge would compel a full sale, but that is not actually certain either. There are a whole host of other potential awards, one of which may be a part sale anyway.
If the deal is agreed, then both sides have the option to involve the Trust in a future sale. However that only happens if one of them makes it happen. It doesn't happen if the Trust is against the deal and the future buyer doesn't want to take that PR hit for example. You're right, they might force it. We saw last year that potential buyers aren't always fully aware of the dynamics in play - given the press coverage this year, lack of awareness may not be as explainable in the future - so it may not be the factor we'd like it to be. However, and you seem to be missing this point, might is not the same thing as will. One is uncertain, the other is certain. The drag along clause simply does not guarantee the Trust will not have a stake in the result of any future sale, it means it might not ... for at least two possible reasons, one of which being it's not what the Trust members want, at that time. |
Uxbridge : you have the approach and attitude of someone who is pleased to take whatever is thrown in their direction. Like tossing scraps of meat to a starving dog.
I'd certainly not want you alongside me in a trench in a war. You haven't got enough fight in your belly to take this on. The Trust, just remember, have been shat on from the greatest height by people who should have known better. All you are doing is virtually accepting everything and anything.
Listen to what more knowledgeable people are trying to tell you. At least, keep an open mind and consider the fight ahead. Stand up and be counted. Show them you mean business. Be strong and be proud. You're like a limp lettuce leaf about the fooking place mun. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:54 - Jul 4 with 1547 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:22 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
It really does need repeating that your percentages are completely made up. They are your perception, nothing more. I disagree with both of them.
Both options DO NOT mean the Trust sells it stake. Actually, neither guarantee it, if we're being accurate here.
The legal route will only result in a full sale if a) legal action is successful, and b) the judge determines that the correct course of action is a full sale. Neither of those things are actually guaranteed. We believe the odds are in our favour on the former, however there is a very real chance that the case would not be won. I hope i never have to refer back to this thread in the result of an unsuccessful legal case, but I could never be accused of misleading that legal action could not turn out as we want. On the latter, it is the most likely scenario that a judge would compel a full sale, but that is not actually certain either. There are a whole host of other potential awards, one of which may be a part sale anyway.
If the deal is agreed, then both sides have the option to involve the Trust in a future sale. However that only happens if one of them makes it happen. It doesn't happen if the Trust is against the deal and the future buyer doesn't want to take that PR hit for example. You're right, they might force it. We saw last year that potential buyers aren't always fully aware of the dynamics in play - given the press coverage this year, lack of awareness may not be as explainable in the future - so it may not be the factor we'd like it to be. However, and you seem to be missing this point, might is not the same thing as will. One is uncertain, the other is certain. The drag along clause simply does not guarantee the Trust will not have a stake in the result of any future sale, it means it might not ... for at least two possible reasons, one of which being it's not what the Trust members want, at that time. |
By conceding the 'drag' rights it is then not your decision whether the Trust sells its stake - it's the Yanks (not the Trust - or vote of Trust members at the time). Given what has happened do you really think the Yanks wouldn't take up the Drag rights if the Trust was not happy with the new buyer? Would the Trust go to court then?
Surely a new buyer would take the initial PR hit at the time of buying out the Trust - rather than ongoing hassle. It would make new buyer's 100% holding more attractive to who they then sell on to. You never know though.
Also could be in a downward spiral scenario at the time and new buyer could take up the Drag rights for a few quid and they wont be worrying about the PR hit In that scenario.
I don't want you to disclose what you think the chances are of winning in court are - as that could undermine the Trust's negotiating position. I assume it is 75% to 90%.
But what do you think is the % chance of the club staying in the PL for the next 5 years is? I have estimated 83% chance of being relegated from current bookies odds - but I am not a statistician | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:05 - Jul 4 with 1515 views | QJumpingJack |
Nookie - are you standing for Trust election? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:22 - Jul 4 with 1500 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:54 - Jul 4 by Nookiejack |
By conceding the 'drag' rights it is then not your decision whether the Trust sells its stake - it's the Yanks (not the Trust - or vote of Trust members at the time). Given what has happened do you really think the Yanks wouldn't take up the Drag rights if the Trust was not happy with the new buyer? Would the Trust go to court then?
Surely a new buyer would take the initial PR hit at the time of buying out the Trust - rather than ongoing hassle. It would make new buyer's 100% holding more attractive to who they then sell on to. You never know though.
Also could be in a downward spiral scenario at the time and new buyer could take up the Drag rights for a few quid and they wont be worrying about the PR hit In that scenario.
I don't want you to disclose what you think the chances are of winning in court are - as that could undermine the Trust's negotiating position. I assume it is 75% to 90%.
But what do you think is the % chance of the club staying in the PL for the next 5 years is? I have estimated 83% chance of being relegated from current bookies odds - but I am not a statistician |
You seem to be forgetting the Trust will have tag rights too. So I disagree, the Trust can also decide, if it doesn't like the look of anyone coming in.
You're not a statistician, hence my comment. You're guessing. Bookies odds wouldn't be the way to determine it anyway ... they depend as much on the market as probability. If I had to guess, I'd say there's a 50:50 chance of relegation ... we're in a league of 10-12 clubs every year, with 3 of them going down. Also should always remember that there'll usually be at least a couple of weaker clubs coming up so that, so long as we're running our ship properly, the odds are in our favour. Disrupt that, such as for a legal case for example, and that becomes more likely. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:36 - Jul 4 with 1478 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:39 - Jul 4 by swancity |
Uxbridge : you have the approach and attitude of someone who is pleased to take whatever is thrown in their direction. Like tossing scraps of meat to a starving dog.
I'd certainly not want you alongside me in a trench in a war. You haven't got enough fight in your belly to take this on. The Trust, just remember, have been shat on from the greatest height by people who should have known better. All you are doing is virtually accepting everything and anything.
Listen to what more knowledgeable people are trying to tell you. At least, keep an open mind and consider the fight ahead. Stand up and be counted. Show them you mean business. Be strong and be proud. You're like a limp lettuce leaf about the fooking place mun. |
Aw bless.
I can understand people disagreeing. Everyone's entitled to their view. On this very thread I've urged everyone eligible to vote, and those who aren't, to understand the issues, options, risk and rewards and come to their own conclusion. People will have different perspectives (although I do like the idea that if you disagree with you that person is somehow simply missing the point). Vive la démocratie.
I'm not sure acting like a cretin and insulting me is going to convince anyone to change their mind though. It just makes you and your opinion irrelevant. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:38 - Jul 4 with 1474 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:05 - Jul 4 by QJumpingJack |
Nookie - are you standing for Trust election? |
I'm happy to second his nomination. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:43 - Jul 4 with 1454 views | EasternJack |
There seems to be a lot of naivety around this.
Regardless of the option taken, I would expect a significant reduction in owners engagement with the trust after this process ends. There will be no motivation for them to do so (beyond engagement with fan representations - and at current member levels, the trust can't justifiable say they represent the majority fanbase) |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:00 - Jul 4 with 1426 views | cimlajack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:43 - Jul 4 by EasternJack |
There seems to be a lot of naivety around this.
Regardless of the option taken, I would expect a significant reduction in owners engagement with the trust after this process ends. There will be no motivation for them to do so (beyond engagement with fan representations - and at current member levels, the trust can't justifiable say they represent the majority fanbase) |
"I would expect a significant reduction in owners engagement with the Trust after this process ends "
As soon as the threat of litigation is buried,meaningful engagement with the Trust ends,for sure. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:02 - Jul 4 with 1420 views | tomdickharry |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:36 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
Aw bless.
I can understand people disagreeing. Everyone's entitled to their view. On this very thread I've urged everyone eligible to vote, and those who aren't, to understand the issues, options, risk and rewards and come to their own conclusion. People will have different perspectives (although I do like the idea that if you disagree with you that person is somehow simply missing the point). Vive la démocratie.
I'm not sure acting like a cretin and insulting me is going to convince anyone to change their mind though. It just makes you and your opinion irrelevant. |
Any idea when voting papers will be put before members? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:27 - Jul 4 with 1390 views | pikeypaul |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:54 - Jul 4 by Nookiejack |
By conceding the 'drag' rights it is then not your decision whether the Trust sells its stake - it's the Yanks (not the Trust - or vote of Trust members at the time). Given what has happened do you really think the Yanks wouldn't take up the Drag rights if the Trust was not happy with the new buyer? Would the Trust go to court then?
Surely a new buyer would take the initial PR hit at the time of buying out the Trust - rather than ongoing hassle. It would make new buyer's 100% holding more attractive to who they then sell on to. You never know though.
Also could be in a downward spiral scenario at the time and new buyer could take up the Drag rights for a few quid and they wont be worrying about the PR hit In that scenario.
I don't want you to disclose what you think the chances are of winning in court are - as that could undermine the Trust's negotiating position. I assume it is 75% to 90%.
But what do you think is the % chance of the club staying in the PL for the next 5 years is? I have estimated 83% chance of being relegated from current bookies odds - but I am not a statistician |
We are 9/4 to be relegated next season that is a 30.76% chance so on that basis we would have 3 seasons left. But who knows it may be 1 or it may be 5.
One thing is for sure and that is the stinking Yanks are just out to line their own pockets out of OUR club that is beyond doubt and even the trust board who are licking "steves" and "Jas's" rsoles can not deny that. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:27 - Jul 4 with 1383 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:36 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
Aw bless.
I can understand people disagreeing. Everyone's entitled to their view. On this very thread I've urged everyone eligible to vote, and those who aren't, to understand the issues, options, risk and rewards and come to their own conclusion. People will have different perspectives (although I do like the idea that if you disagree with you that person is somehow simply missing the point). Vive la démocratie.
I'm not sure acting like a cretin and insulting me is going to convince anyone to change their mind though. It just makes you and your opinion irrelevant. |
No you haven't. You are making it clear that you have a specific view point and are trying to convince people it's the option to take. It isn't right. Your stance or the attempts to push people down a particular path.
You have a chance to stand up to people for once. To show that you won't simply roll over, have your little bellies tickled and all will be rosy. Stand up and do the right thing, take legal action if you don't get what's yours. Dont take any less.
As for cretin? I don't think so. I've been a fan our Club since 1971. I care about it. I want you to do more, much more than you seem to want to do. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:30 - Jul 4 with 1379 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:02 - Jul 4 by tomdickharry |
Any idea when voting papers will be put before members? |
Should be published in the coming days. Given the need to draw up all the documents, get them to the distributors etc, you're probably looking at 3 weeks time, with a 2 week voting window. Aim to have it finalised by early August. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:35 - Jul 4 with 1355 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:27 - Jul 4 by swancity |
No you haven't. You are making it clear that you have a specific view point and are trying to convince people it's the option to take. It isn't right. Your stance or the attempts to push people down a particular path.
You have a chance to stand up to people for once. To show that you won't simply roll over, have your little bellies tickled and all will be rosy. Stand up and do the right thing, take legal action if you don't get what's yours. Dont take any less.
As for cretin? I don't think so. I've been a fan our Club since 1971. I care about it. I want you to do more, much more than you seem to want to do. |
I care about the club too. Congratulations on being older than me, but I've been going for 30 years too. You don't have the monopoly on caring about what happens to this club.
This argument that I'm not entitled to state what my view is or question someone who I think is posting something that is way off the mark is nonsense though. The Trust has stated what its view is. I'll state the facts (as I have with things such as the drag along clause), but I'll also state my opinion. Your issue is that I disagree with you. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:59 - Jul 4 with 1316 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:35 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
I care about the club too. Congratulations on being older than me, but I've been going for 30 years too. You don't have the monopoly on caring about what happens to this club.
This argument that I'm not entitled to state what my view is or question someone who I think is posting something that is way off the mark is nonsense though. The Trust has stated what its view is. I'll state the facts (as I have with things such as the drag along clause), but I'll also state my opinion. Your issue is that I disagree with you. |
' Your issue is that I disagree with you '
It certainly isn't. My (main) issue revolves around the lack of desire from the Trust to really attack and confront the problem head on. To fight fire with fire. You've lost the plot I'm afraid. People have pissed all over you and you don't want to put it right. Unforgivable. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:26 - Jul 4 with 1269 views | budegan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:29 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
Simple answer is that they see him as the best man for the job, and want him to continue overseeing the football side of the business. They think his record, going back to the early 2000's, backs that up. |
Thanks for the reply Ux. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:32 - Jul 4 with 1254 views | longlostjack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:33 - Jul 4 by Starsky |
Interesting point from your last sentence...
By going legal and then waiting 2 years for the court case. There's every chance the trust could receive better treatment from the Americans, than if we'd taken the deal and then possibly becoming vulnerable after the sale of shares.
And as you say, plenty of time to receive improved deals to cancel the court case. |
I agree. The more I look at this the more I think that signing this deal is more beneficial to the US owners - whoever they are - as it makes it easier for them to sell the club "going forward". I really doubt that they're in it for the long term. Start the ball rolling for litigation. If the boot was on the other foot they would. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
