| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 121291 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 15:10 - Jul 7 with 2493 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:02 - Jul 7 by Nookiejack |
The best financial result will achieve all the other Trust aims.
It will actually achieve more as it will give the Trust the long term opportunity of controlling the club - rather than just influence (Yanks now controlling 79% of the voting rights? and when the legal action is withdrawn?).
The difference is time - it is a longer term play.
Legal action, if we win, gives the Trust the long term opportunity of taking control of the club.
Accepting the Yank's offer (less than the selling shareholders received) will mean keeping a stake in short-term (until the Drag rights are taken up) but risks a downward spiral and then giving up long term opportunity of Trust controlling the club.
Do people think the Yanks can turn around our slide in PL over last few seasons (Bob Bradley decision comes to mind). I don't so it is a bird in the hand for me. |
I think the answer to the control of our slide we will be dependant on PC's performance and the outocome of this transfer window.
If we can retain Siggy and Llorente along with the other additons plus an addtion at RB either as cover for Naughton to first choice as some would prefer then we have a squad which on paper has enough to finish mid table and compete for a cup ...should no disasters with injuries occur.
Our slide as we all know bgean with the appointment of Monk as permenant manager...inexperienced to be able read and change things as they were going wrong plus his ego didnt help....great player for us and helped save us at the end of Laudrups reign, coupled with disasterous recruitment and a manager merry go round of Guidolin and then clown Bob.
Given where we were in the league when Clement arrived and where and how we finished considering the run in you could say the slide has been arrested BUT we need to see where we are 10 games in to next season . Please do not take this as any defence of the Yanks.....I think PC appointment is more due to I hate to say it HJ explaining to them when we in the pits their "investment" was about to go pop! It depends if they then decide to let those who know about and are experienced in Briitsh football to sort the footballing issues unfortuneately that means HJ......you know the man so many on here were spouting in HJ we trust.....yeah look where that has got us.
I think we all have different opinions and there are so many if s and buts.
Legal action itself could start the downward spiral......we may not win even though we are told we have a good case.
The club could thrive under our new owners though I am not sure I would want to trust them with the stadium lease!
And then again we could enter the downward spiral who knows....if we had that foresight we wouldnt bew in this predicament as we would all be millionaires form winning the lottery and all wih part share in our beloved football club. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:20 - Jul 7 with 2483 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:02 - Jul 7 by Nookiejack |
The best financial result will achieve all the other Trust aims.
It will actually achieve more as it will give the Trust the long term opportunity of controlling the club - rather than just influence (Yanks now controlling 79% of the voting rights? and when the legal action is withdrawn?).
The difference is time - it is a longer term play.
Legal action, if we win, gives the Trust the long term opportunity of taking control of the club.
Accepting the Yank's offer (less than the selling shareholders received) will mean keeping a stake in short-term (until the Drag rights are taken up) but risks a downward spiral and then giving up long term opportunity of Trust controlling the club.
Do people think the Yanks can turn around our slide in PL over last few seasons (Bob Bradley decision comes to mind). I don't so it is a bird in the hand for me. |
Before I go, that first sentence really does need challenging. It's pretty questionable on several levels.
The aims of the Trust are at http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-aims/
Forcing a full sale (if that's the end result of legal action ... and it really does bear repeating it isn't even remotely as certain as you state) definitely fails at least two of those aims, and probably another two.
Now, you could argue it's the way to get the best financial result which in turn is the best way of protecting professional football status in the city via a slush fund, but even that is debatable - the part sale now and future tag along could arguably be better. A bet on success absolutely, but legal action is a different type of bet. Is it the likelier bet for a fund of approaching £15-£20m or above? That's up for debate. Dealer's choice really.
Either way, a full sale certainly doesn't meet the stated aims of bringing the club closer to the community or having board representation. The last aim of representing the members aims is probably moot either way as it's a vote of the members.
One thing you haven't mentioned is what timeframe we'd be looking for this greater level of involvement than we have today. Are we looking 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? It could be any of them. That could be a long time without any fan engagement at the club. When will that £20m be enough to ensure the Trust has overall control? What level will we have to be at for that to happen? I am sure some will even question whether the Trust having overall control is even a desirable goal (I won't though).
There are a lot of comments I agree with on this thread, some I don't, but the one I really struggle to fathom is why we're so keen to remove the existing involvement that we have. As fans, we'd be significantly worse off without that involvement, and without being able to curb at least the worst financial excesses of the majority owners IMO. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:41 - Jul 7 with 2453 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:10 - Jul 7 by vetchonian |
I think the answer to the control of our slide we will be dependant on PC's performance and the outocome of this transfer window.
If we can retain Siggy and Llorente along with the other additons plus an addtion at RB either as cover for Naughton to first choice as some would prefer then we have a squad which on paper has enough to finish mid table and compete for a cup ...should no disasters with injuries occur.
Our slide as we all know bgean with the appointment of Monk as permenant manager...inexperienced to be able read and change things as they were going wrong plus his ego didnt help....great player for us and helped save us at the end of Laudrups reign, coupled with disasterous recruitment and a manager merry go round of Guidolin and then clown Bob.
Given where we were in the league when Clement arrived and where and how we finished considering the run in you could say the slide has been arrested BUT we need to see where we are 10 games in to next season . Please do not take this as any defence of the Yanks.....I think PC appointment is more due to I hate to say it HJ explaining to them when we in the pits their "investment" was about to go pop! It depends if they then decide to let those who know about and are experienced in Briitsh football to sort the footballing issues unfortuneately that means HJ......you know the man so many on here were spouting in HJ we trust.....yeah look where that has got us.
I think we all have different opinions and there are so many if s and buts.
Legal action itself could start the downward spiral......we may not win even though we are told we have a good case.
The club could thrive under our new owners though I am not sure I would want to trust them with the stadium lease!
And then again we could enter the downward spiral who knows....if we had that foresight we wouldnt bew in this predicament as we would all be millionaires form winning the lottery and all wih part share in our beloved football club. |
Yes great synopsis
For me with all the ifs and buts - I would rather have the money banked, if we win the litigation, and then very happy to cheer the Yanks on - knowing the Trust has the funds to protect the club's long term future. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:46 - Jul 7 with 2443 views | monmouth |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:20 - Jul 7 by Uxbridge |
Before I go, that first sentence really does need challenging. It's pretty questionable on several levels.
The aims of the Trust are at http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-aims/
Forcing a full sale (if that's the end result of legal action ... and it really does bear repeating it isn't even remotely as certain as you state) definitely fails at least two of those aims, and probably another two.
Now, you could argue it's the way to get the best financial result which in turn is the best way of protecting professional football status in the city via a slush fund, but even that is debatable - the part sale now and future tag along could arguably be better. A bet on success absolutely, but legal action is a different type of bet. Is it the likelier bet for a fund of approaching £15-£20m or above? That's up for debate. Dealer's choice really.
Either way, a full sale certainly doesn't meet the stated aims of bringing the club closer to the community or having board representation. The last aim of representing the members aims is probably moot either way as it's a vote of the members.
One thing you haven't mentioned is what timeframe we'd be looking for this greater level of involvement than we have today. Are we looking 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? It could be any of them. That could be a long time without any fan engagement at the club. When will that £20m be enough to ensure the Trust has overall control? What level will we have to be at for that to happen? I am sure some will even question whether the Trust having overall control is even a desirable goal (I won't though).
There are a lot of comments I agree with on this thread, some I don't, but the one I really struggle to fathom is why we're so keen to remove the existing involvement that we have. As fans, we'd be significantly worse off without that involvement, and without being able to curb at least the worst financial excesses of the majority owners IMO. |
That's a sensible response that again illustrates how difficult this bastard is. can you just explain for me though Ux, how accepting this deal allows the Trust to curb any financial excesses by the majority owners. that would make a difference to me I think. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:00 - Jul 7 with 2427 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:20 - Jul 7 by Uxbridge |
Before I go, that first sentence really does need challenging. It's pretty questionable on several levels.
The aims of the Trust are at http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-aims/
Forcing a full sale (if that's the end result of legal action ... and it really does bear repeating it isn't even remotely as certain as you state) definitely fails at least two of those aims, and probably another two.
Now, you could argue it's the way to get the best financial result which in turn is the best way of protecting professional football status in the city via a slush fund, but even that is debatable - the part sale now and future tag along could arguably be better. A bet on success absolutely, but legal action is a different type of bet. Is it the likelier bet for a fund of approaching £15-£20m or above? That's up for debate. Dealer's choice really.
Either way, a full sale certainly doesn't meet the stated aims of bringing the club closer to the community or having board representation. The last aim of representing the members aims is probably moot either way as it's a vote of the members.
One thing you haven't mentioned is what timeframe we'd be looking for this greater level of involvement than we have today. Are we looking 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? It could be any of them. That could be a long time without any fan engagement at the club. When will that £20m be enough to ensure the Trust has overall control? What level will we have to be at for that to happen? I am sure some will even question whether the Trust having overall control is even a desirable goal (I won't though).
There are a lot of comments I agree with on this thread, some I don't, but the one I really struggle to fathom is why we're so keen to remove the existing involvement that we have. As fans, we'd be significantly worse off without that involvement, and without being able to curb at least the worst financial excesses of the majority owners IMO. |
I can't give you a timeframe neither can you be sure that a new buyer will come out of the woodwork and buys 100% of the club - as soon as you agree to the 'Drag' rights.
With regards to giving up fan involvement the Yanks have 79% of voting rights (68% of the shares) and any influence, up to the Drag rights being taken up - is likely to be further diminished as soon as you agree to no further legal action.
You talk about influence however if the Yanks respected the Trust they would have made the same offer as they did for the selling shareholders.
How will the above be any different from fans groups around the country - who have a dialogue with their clubs to express their issues - without holding a stake.
However with litigation, if we win there is then an opportunity of actual control of the club - not just a say.
Monetarily keeping the stake might end up being more beneficial - however I do not think it is worth the risk - given chances of relegation are high over cumulative next few year period. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:08 - Jul 7 with 2422 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:46 - Jul 7 by monmouth |
That's a sensible response that again illustrates how difficult this bastard is. can you just explain for me though Ux, how accepting this deal allows the Trust to curb any financial excesses by the majority owners. that would make a difference to me I think. |
I have also sort of asked that question to the likes of Lisa and Shaky who have the knowledge.
I wondered that as long as the Trust retains a stake it sort of limits how the Yanks can take out any monies such as via a dividend as the Trust as a shareholder ( even a "minor" one )would be entitled to the same prorata. Also I would have thought given sight of the financials allows them to question any "management /consultant fees" or other spurious outgoings.
Maybe I am wrong thats why I asked Lisa/ Shakey
I also asked for clarifiaction as to if the Yanks could sell to a newco for a nominal fee thereby "dragging" the remaining Trust shareholding along at next to no value. The newco being owned by messers Kaplan and Levian or associates
TO me the involvement as Ux states is sort of crucial bit we also need to protect the financial intrest | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:26 - Jul 7 with 2399 views | monmouth |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:08 - Jul 7 by vetchonian |
I have also sort of asked that question to the likes of Lisa and Shaky who have the knowledge.
I wondered that as long as the Trust retains a stake it sort of limits how the Yanks can take out any monies such as via a dividend as the Trust as a shareholder ( even a "minor" one )would be entitled to the same prorata. Also I would have thought given sight of the financials allows them to question any "management /consultant fees" or other spurious outgoings.
Maybe I am wrong thats why I asked Lisa/ Shakey
I also asked for clarifiaction as to if the Yanks could sell to a newco for a nominal fee thereby "dragging" the remaining Trust shareholding along at next to no value. The newco being owned by messers Kaplan and Levian or associates
TO me the involvement as Ux states is sort of crucial bit we also need to protect the financial intrest |
Oh yes I get the idea that a minority interest means there remains the option of legal action if the majority siphon money out without the Trust getting a share. Not that I don't think that they couldn't find a way. They probably have access to advice and experience in company finance we can't dream of. I was thinking more in terms of loading up with excessive debt as the really dangerous financial excess.
But yes the minority deterrent is something I see as a plus for the deal, although the same legal warnings would exist then as now if the Trust was to pursue. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:05 - Jul 7 with 2378 views | Vetchfielder |
Dear Sellouts
I have an idea as to how to reach an equitable solution to this mess, a mess you have got us into.
1. HJ and LD resign from the employment of SCFC
2. HJ and MM resign their directorships
3. You and maybe the Americans pool together and donate, yes donate, £21m to the Trust. You still get to keep £40M ish between you which isn't too bad is it?.
4. The Trust maintains it's 21% stake to compensate us for the sh1t position you've put us in and the divisions you've caused in supporters.
5. In return for 1.to 4. the Trust agrees to drop legal action related to actions involved in the sale.
Deal ? |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:17 - Jul 7 with 2363 views | waynekerr55 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:05 - Jul 7 by Vetchfielder |
Dear Sellouts
I have an idea as to how to reach an equitable solution to this mess, a mess you have got us into.
1. HJ and LD resign from the employment of SCFC
2. HJ and MM resign their directorships
3. You and maybe the Americans pool together and donate, yes donate, £21m to the Trust. You still get to keep £40M ish between you which isn't too bad is it?.
4. The Trust maintains it's 21% stake to compensate us for the sh1t position you've put us in and the divisions you've caused in supporters.
5. In return for 1.to 4. the Trust agrees to drop legal action related to actions involved in the sale.
Deal ? |
Yeah, like they would even consider that.
If they had a grain of self awareness they would have tendered their resignations. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:44 - Jul 7 with 2346 views | Vetchfielder |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:17 - Jul 7 by waynekerr55 |
Yeah, like they would even consider that.
If they had a grain of self awareness they would have tendered their resignations. |
Yeah you're right Wayne but I feel marginally better after writing it | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:50 - Jul 7 with 2259 views | Gowerjack |
| 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. |
In a nutshell.
A no brainier for me.
We have to go to litigation. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:19 - Jul 7 with 2228 views | Gowerjack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:25 - Jul 4 by ExiledJack |
Strategically it's a fantastic position for the Trust to be in - if the club is well run in future we will be a Premier League club and nothing to worry about. If it isn't, we will eventually be relegated and the Trust will have the funds to buy back in with more meaningful control than is currently the case. Win win. |
This | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:20 - Jul 7 with 2225 views | longlostjack |
"If the Yanks put more upfront money on the table and they concede the 'drag' rights then that changes the basis for the decision."
That's what needs to happen.
Need to be as hard nosed business minded as they are. No time for sentimentality. The Yanks are professional negotiators. It won't be their final offer. I mean no disrespect to the Trust Board who have given up their time to get this far. I just think that at least a mandate from the members for legal action will concentrate the "investors" minds. [Post edited 7 Jul 2017 23:21]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:15 - Jul 8 with 2195 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:20 - Jul 7 by Uxbridge |
Before I go, that first sentence really does need challenging. It's pretty questionable on several levels.
The aims of the Trust are at http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-aims/
Forcing a full sale (if that's the end result of legal action ... and it really does bear repeating it isn't even remotely as certain as you state) definitely fails at least two of those aims, and probably another two.
Now, you could argue it's the way to get the best financial result which in turn is the best way of protecting professional football status in the city via a slush fund, but even that is debatable - the part sale now and future tag along could arguably be better. A bet on success absolutely, but legal action is a different type of bet. Is it the likelier bet for a fund of approaching £15-£20m or above? That's up for debate. Dealer's choice really.
Either way, a full sale certainly doesn't meet the stated aims of bringing the club closer to the community or having board representation. The last aim of representing the members aims is probably moot either way as it's a vote of the members.
One thing you haven't mentioned is what timeframe we'd be looking for this greater level of involvement than we have today. Are we looking 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? It could be any of them. That could be a long time without any fan engagement at the club. When will that £20m be enough to ensure the Trust has overall control? What level will we have to be at for that to happen? I am sure some will even question whether the Trust having overall control is even a desirable goal (I won't though).
There are a lot of comments I agree with on this thread, some I don't, but the one I really struggle to fathom is why we're so keen to remove the existing involvement that we have. As fans, we'd be significantly worse off without that involvement, and without being able to curb at least the worst financial excesses of the majority owners IMO. |
But what fan engagement do we have now? Realistically...
We all complained about the ticket prices for the friendlies, the Trust said they have made them aware - yet ticket prices are the same. There is no difference between the Trust rep telling them that and them ignoring him to a fan on the street telling them the same and them ignoring.
Surely the Trusts ultimate aim to cover all of the original aims is to have a controlling stake in the club so it can never fall into bad hands again and all decisions are solely for the benefit of the football club.
The only way this can happen is by acquiring a very large sum of money. Certainly not by accepting the offer.
As for timescale - it's irrelevant. The longer it takes means the more successful we have been. The Trust will only be able to take a controlling stake in the club with £20m+ if we have fallen from grace. If that doesn't happen for the next 30 years then great, that's surely good news not bad?
Fans will always have power, far more power than any token meaningless seat on the board. If people didn't turn up to this friendly for example then the price would change to what the fan thinks is acceptable. Right now the Trust can do naff all other than do what any fan can do and complain.
The Trust doesn't have to disband it just becomes a sleeper cell and can actively support the fan base in pushing through their wishes. It can organise and promote certain things, like a boycott of the friendly for example, or a peaceful demonstration regarding the prices. Just one example of The Trust retaining (or even gaining) power yet relinquishing their meaningless shares in return for the possibility of 100% fan owned club in the future.
No brainier. [Post edited 8 Jul 2017 0:19]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 03:58 - Jul 8 with 2154 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:15 - Jul 8 by E20Jack |
But what fan engagement do we have now? Realistically...
We all complained about the ticket prices for the friendlies, the Trust said they have made them aware - yet ticket prices are the same. There is no difference between the Trust rep telling them that and them ignoring him to a fan on the street telling them the same and them ignoring.
Surely the Trusts ultimate aim to cover all of the original aims is to have a controlling stake in the club so it can never fall into bad hands again and all decisions are solely for the benefit of the football club.
The only way this can happen is by acquiring a very large sum of money. Certainly not by accepting the offer.
As for timescale - it's irrelevant. The longer it takes means the more successful we have been. The Trust will only be able to take a controlling stake in the club with £20m+ if we have fallen from grace. If that doesn't happen for the next 30 years then great, that's surely good news not bad?
Fans will always have power, far more power than any token meaningless seat on the board. If people didn't turn up to this friendly for example then the price would change to what the fan thinks is acceptable. Right now the Trust can do naff all other than do what any fan can do and complain.
The Trust doesn't have to disband it just becomes a sleeper cell and can actively support the fan base in pushing through their wishes. It can organise and promote certain things, like a boycott of the friendly for example, or a peaceful demonstration regarding the prices. Just one example of The Trust retaining (or even gaining) power yet relinquishing their meaningless shares in return for the possibility of 100% fan owned club in the future.
No brainier. [Post edited 8 Jul 2017 0:19]
|
But they wouldn't get their seats in the box or any other perks then? Best keep "Steve and Jas" onside like. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:06 - Jul 8 with 2020 views | JENKINSOUT |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:15 - Jul 8 by E20Jack |
But what fan engagement do we have now? Realistically...
We all complained about the ticket prices for the friendlies, the Trust said they have made them aware - yet ticket prices are the same. There is no difference between the Trust rep telling them that and them ignoring him to a fan on the street telling them the same and them ignoring.
Surely the Trusts ultimate aim to cover all of the original aims is to have a controlling stake in the club so it can never fall into bad hands again and all decisions are solely for the benefit of the football club.
The only way this can happen is by acquiring a very large sum of money. Certainly not by accepting the offer.
As for timescale - it's irrelevant. The longer it takes means the more successful we have been. The Trust will only be able to take a controlling stake in the club with £20m+ if we have fallen from grace. If that doesn't happen for the next 30 years then great, that's surely good news not bad?
Fans will always have power, far more power than any token meaningless seat on the board. If people didn't turn up to this friendly for example then the price would change to what the fan thinks is acceptable. Right now the Trust can do naff all other than do what any fan can do and complain.
The Trust doesn't have to disband it just becomes a sleeper cell and can actively support the fan base in pushing through their wishes. It can organise and promote certain things, like a boycott of the friendly for example, or a peaceful demonstration regarding the prices. Just one example of The Trust retaining (or even gaining) power yet relinquishing their meaningless shares in return for the possibility of 100% fan owned club in the future.
No brainier. [Post edited 8 Jul 2017 0:19]
|
The thought of our Trust (or any Trust for that matter) having a controlling stake worries me massively. Worries me even more at lower levels as we would struggle past the initial investment.
We saw all too well when we were down on our arse how tight money is do the Trust then keep coming back to us for more donations just to keep the club afloat.
We need a better deal then what we have been presented with and we need it without Jenkins being involved but I am not in favour of us dropping out completely, they may have no influence but I would rather they were in there knowing what is going on then being completely blind which is what the experts on here are suggesting | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:08 - Jul 8 with 2018 views | JENKINSOUT |
| Interesting Trust Email on 03:58 - Jul 8 by Meraki |
But they wouldn't get their seats in the box or any other perks then? Best keep "Steve and Jas" onside like. |
Please tell me this isn't true and that they pay for match tickets - after all the stuff last year they should have learned | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:06 - Jul 8 with 1971 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:05 - Jul 7 by Vetchfielder |
Dear Sellouts
I have an idea as to how to reach an equitable solution to this mess, a mess you have got us into.
1. HJ and LD resign from the employment of SCFC
2. HJ and MM resign their directorships
3. You and maybe the Americans pool together and donate, yes donate, £21m to the Trust. You still get to keep £40M ish between you which isn't too bad is it?.
4. The Trust maintains it's 21% stake to compensate us for the sh1t position you've put us in and the divisions you've caused in supporters.
5. In return for 1.to 4. the Trust agrees to drop legal action related to actions involved in the sale.
Deal ? |
As a counter offer to the overly generous offer the Septics have made- you know, the one that eclipses the original sale to the snide, sneaky sell-out non Jack scumbags this is excellent.
Pity we won't get it.
But then come back with "buy 15% of the Trusts shares at the original price, no drag rights (not that I think there would be with just 6% of the shares) and certain individuals who no longer have shares, profiting from easy money schemes.
No easy tickets. No using a certain hotel or sh1te coffee from the worst offender of the lot.
Only way to get rid of the sellout b'stards is going to make it too uncomfy for them to be in the ground and hope the w anchors walk away.
Or in Dimwits case, slither like the slug he is.
Wish I could just lob a bit of salt at him and it have the same effect as it does on the rest of his species |  |
| 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 15:13 - Jul 8 with 1927 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:06 - Jul 8 by JENKINSOUT |
The thought of our Trust (or any Trust for that matter) having a controlling stake worries me massively. Worries me even more at lower levels as we would struggle past the initial investment.
We saw all too well when we were down on our arse how tight money is do the Trust then keep coming back to us for more donations just to keep the club afloat.
We need a better deal then what we have been presented with and we need it without Jenkins being involved but I am not in favour of us dropping out completely, they may have no influence but I would rather they were in there knowing what is going on then being completely blind which is what the experts on here are suggesting |
How much money did we need when we were on our Arse?
How much did Trust raise for its original 20% stake?
How much would have been needed when we were on our arse for control? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:03 - Jul 9 with 1826 views | harryhpalmer |
how many members do you think will be swayed to change their vote should Siggy be sold for £35m | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:04 - Jul 9 with 1778 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 00:03 - Jul 9 by harryhpalmer |
how many members do you think will be swayed to change their vote should Siggy be sold for £35m |
Trust get a say on transfers don't they? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:48 - Jul 9 with 1767 views | NOTRAC |
It is no good going blindly into litigation if even success provides the Trust with something it does not want.A potful of money ,but no shares or say in the running of the club.
The only way that I would be in favour of litigation would be if there was something extra at the end of it.Something that does not deplete the Trust's capital ,simply changing one type of asset,shares and cash into another , but into an asset that would give it immediate power over whoever owns us.
There is one asset that the Americans are desperate to acquire.If the Trust said we also want to acquire that asset and we can if we win the litigation battle, then I would be all for it.
I refer of course to the Liberty lease.
The ownership of that lease would give the Trust power over the Americans or any consortium that eventually owns us.
Through ownership we would govern the rent chargeable and any other conditions that the Trust may want to include in a sub lease.For example a guaranteed place on the Board..
Time however is short.The Americans have not hidden their desire to acquire the lease, even though they cannot give major reasons for their haste.In reality of course they know that owning the lease gives them that full control which is so important as far as future sales are concerned.
The Trust should indicate to the Local Authority their own intention of acquiring the lease through compensation from litigation and put a stop to the Americans acquiring it.
The Trust would have another purpose in going for litigation, and by acquiring the lease would have the power to be a force now and in the future. [Post edited 9 Jul 2017 8:00]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:24 - Jul 9 with 1712 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:48 - Jul 9 by NOTRAC |
It is no good going blindly into litigation if even success provides the Trust with something it does not want.A potful of money ,but no shares or say in the running of the club.
The only way that I would be in favour of litigation would be if there was something extra at the end of it.Something that does not deplete the Trust's capital ,simply changing one type of asset,shares and cash into another , but into an asset that would give it immediate power over whoever owns us.
There is one asset that the Americans are desperate to acquire.If the Trust said we also want to acquire that asset and we can if we win the litigation battle, then I would be all for it.
I refer of course to the Liberty lease.
The ownership of that lease would give the Trust power over the Americans or any consortium that eventually owns us.
Through ownership we would govern the rent chargeable and any other conditions that the Trust may want to include in a sub lease.For example a guaranteed place on the Board..
Time however is short.The Americans have not hidden their desire to acquire the lease, even though they cannot give major reasons for their haste.In reality of course they know that owning the lease gives them that full control which is so important as far as future sales are concerned.
The Trust should indicate to the Local Authority their own intention of acquiring the lease through compensation from litigation and put a stop to the Americans acquiring it.
The Trust would have another purpose in going for litigation, and by acquiring the lease would have the power to be a force now and in the future. [Post edited 9 Jul 2017 8:00]
|
What an excellent idea.
The council would look like a saviour then "we've handed a community asset to the community," whilst getting rid of something that is losing money under it's present set up.
Plus both the football and rugby would be guaranteed a home for the length of the lease.
Trust gets naming rights income, plus match day vending, rent, music rent/ sales etc etc.
Plus the ticket sales commission (if it puts all in place), shop rent, sponsorship of the hospitality
Turn the place into a community asset. Could even play the local schools cup finals there, as a way of interacting with the community.
Yes, the Trust would have to set up, run a company and employ people to do the jobs necessary but that's a small price to pay for control that has to be listened to.
Providing the company can be run at a profit.
The Septics are "stymied" in their efforts to sell quickly
Plus as the stadium bosses we'd also have the power to put bans in place on certain people being on the premises  | |
| 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 09:29 - Jul 9 with 1703 views | longlostjack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:48 - Jul 9 by NOTRAC |
It is no good going blindly into litigation if even success provides the Trust with something it does not want.A potful of money ,but no shares or say in the running of the club.
The only way that I would be in favour of litigation would be if there was something extra at the end of it.Something that does not deplete the Trust's capital ,simply changing one type of asset,shares and cash into another , but into an asset that would give it immediate power over whoever owns us.
There is one asset that the Americans are desperate to acquire.If the Trust said we also want to acquire that asset and we can if we win the litigation battle, then I would be all for it.
I refer of course to the Liberty lease.
The ownership of that lease would give the Trust power over the Americans or any consortium that eventually owns us.
Through ownership we would govern the rent chargeable and any other conditions that the Trust may want to include in a sub lease.For example a guaranteed place on the Board..
Time however is short.The Americans have not hidden their desire to acquire the lease, even though they cannot give major reasons for their haste.In reality of course they know that owning the lease gives them that full control which is so important as far as future sales are concerned.
The Trust should indicate to the Local Authority their own intention of acquiring the lease through compensation from litigation and put a stop to the Americans acquiring it.
The Trust would have another purpose in going for litigation, and by acquiring the lease would have the power to be a force now and in the future. [Post edited 9 Jul 2017 8:00]
|
Great idea. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:41 - Jul 9 with 1686 views | dameedna |
Not clear how the NewCo would get involved through a strategy linked to litigation. Could find the current owners would move first.
It may be a good move but it could be an idea that should be covertly hatched. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
