| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 120408 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:17 - Jul 22 with 2081 views | Dewi1jack |
And true or not,
that story should give everyones head a wobble over the Drag rights wording |  |
| 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 03:09 - Jul 23 with 2026 views | Meraki |
| Interesting Trust Email on 23:17 - Jul 22 by Dewi1jack |
And true or not,
that story should give everyones head a wobble over the Drag rights wording |
I find it strange that the enitre trust board are voting the same way, lets all go along together - does anyone argue an alternative - or are they that cosy. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:48 - Jul 23 with 1969 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 03:09 - Jul 23 by Meraki |
I find it strange that the enitre trust board are voting the same way, lets all go along together - does anyone argue an alternative - or are they that cosy. |
Rest assured, the Trust Board had several heated discussions about this whole business and there has been a wide range of views expressed covering all three options. In terms of the ballot itself, I only know with 100% certainty which way one person on the Trust Board will vote and that's me. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:36 - Jul 23 with 1923 views | exiledclaseboy |
I had all the papers yesterday. Reading them seems like it'd be suspiciously close to working so I've asked the wife to read them as a neutral (she has no idea of the ins and outs of all this) and tell me which way I should vote. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:58 - Jul 23 with 1868 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:36 - Jul 23 by exiledclaseboy |
I had all the papers yesterday. Reading them seems like it'd be suspiciously close to working so I've asked the wife to read them as a neutral (she has no idea of the ins and outs of all this) and tell me which way I should vote. |
This is a pretty good idea actually.
The responsible one is a ST holder so involved with the club but not the Trust.
I'm still caught between option 2 and 3.
Nobody pushing option 1 has explained in any shape or form what stops the Merrycans setting up another shell company stateside or offshore elsewhere and taking the Trust shares for literally pennies.
Then flogging us to someone like the Indian in the story the other day.
Shell company is a win win for Jase and Stevie Boy.
Especially if we believe they're just the front men for the shell company holding their shares | |
| 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 11:07 - Jul 23 with 1856 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:58 - Jul 23 by Dewi1jack |
This is a pretty good idea actually.
The responsible one is a ST holder so involved with the club but not the Trust.
I'm still caught between option 2 and 3.
Nobody pushing option 1 has explained in any shape or form what stops the Merrycans setting up another shell company stateside or offshore elsewhere and taking the Trust shares for literally pennies.
Then flogging us to someone like the Indian in the story the other day.
Shell company is a win win for Jase and Stevie Boy.
Especially if we believe they're just the front men for the shell company holding their shares |
There would have to be protections built into any such drag along clause. That's standard.
If you can make it on Thursday I'd really recommend bringing this up, as I know Dai would be able to elaborate further. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:36 - Jul 23 with 1830 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:07 - Jul 23 by Uxbridge |
There would have to be protections built into any such drag along clause. That's standard.
If you can make it on Thursday I'd really recommend bringing this up, as I know Dai would be able to elaborate further. |
There will of course be protections.
But what can't be protected is the majority choosing to sell to someone like that Indian 'businessman' and the Trust selling against their will as well.
And it's more likely to be someone utterly dodgy and unscrupulous if we are relegated.
I hope someone asks Dai on Thursday how we can apply tag rights to sales of shares in an American Holding company when no one knows who owns them in the first place. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:40 - Jul 23 with 1825 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:07 - Jul 23 by Uxbridge |
There would have to be protections built into any such drag along clause. That's standard.
If you can make it on Thursday I'd really recommend bringing this up, as I know Dai would be able to elaborate further. |
Unfortunately I can't make it.
One of the reasons I put forward the idea of the forum on the day of but before or after the Man U game was it would give all people who live well away from Swansea a chance to attend.
Will EMail the concern in.
Seem to remember an option to do so, because now the shares are based outside of the UK and held in what I believe is a shell company already (I don't think the front men had the money to buy the shares)
any protections broken would mean the Trust would have to take legal action to enforce them.
What changes then from now?
Still could have all the funds wiped out in litigation.
May only have a couple of million £ for 21% of shares to play with also.
Drag rights may not be exercised, but a new SHA between buyers and sellers allows for a huge dilution of shares.
Trust has no say as a minority. Even jenkins would now hold Trust shares
Drag rights asks more questions than the paper even gets close to answering | |
| 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 11:43 - Jul 23 with 1818 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:36 - Jul 23 by londonlisa2001 |
There will of course be protections.
But what can't be protected is the majority choosing to sell to someone like that Indian 'businessman' and the Trust selling against their will as well.
And it's more likely to be someone utterly dodgy and unscrupulous if we are relegated.
I hope someone asks Dai on Thursday how we can apply tag rights to sales of shares in an American Holding company when no one knows who owns them in the first place. |
So would I be correct in saying that if the Yanks wanted to sell up they would be able to circumvent any drag/tag clause by selling the holding company rather than the shares of the club directly?. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:45 - Jul 23 with 1810 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:43 - Jul 23 by NeathJack |
So would I be correct in saying that if the Yanks wanted to sell up they would be able to circumvent any drag/tag clause by selling the holding company rather than the shares of the club directly?. |
That seems the way to me.
Voting pack doesn't even get close to alleviating these fears
Edit.
I feel pretty out of my depth trying to understand Corporate legal.
In fact, Twp covers it
I'm used to dealing with Contract legal when there's a problem and maybe I'm looking at this in a contract type of way.
Which may be totally wrong.
I still think I'm right to be suspicious of a "gift horse" which is how the vote pack seems to want the Option 1 portrayed [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 11:50]
| |
| 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 11:48 - Jul 23 with 1807 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:43 - Jul 23 by NeathJack |
So would I be correct in saying that if the Yanks wanted to sell up they would be able to circumvent any drag/tag clause by selling the holding company rather than the shares of the club directly?. |
There would have to be protections for that scenario too. I'm no legal expert, but I'm told that isn't seen as an issue.
Remember that this vote is all subject to contract. If something fundamentally changed from the terms as we understand them, then things couldn't proceed. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:59 - Jul 23 with 1781 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:43 - Jul 23 by NeathJack |
So would I be correct in saying that if the Yanks wanted to sell up they would be able to circumvent any drag/tag clause by selling the holding company rather than the shares of the club directly?. |
I'm sure that again protections could be inserted.
But any action if breach occurs would then need to be taken in Delaware, and believe me, if the Trust thinks legal action is expensive here, to take action as a Uk Trust in Delaware against a Delaware corporation is a whole new ballgame as they'd say.
The other issue is it would seem to me that preventing buying and selling of shares in that corporation (effectively treating it as an investment fund so the whole isn't sold) is very hard, particularly as it's difficult to tell if shares have been sold when no one knows who owns them. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:01 - Jul 23 with 1777 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:48 - Jul 23 by Uxbridge |
There would have to be protections for that scenario too. I'm no legal expert, but I'm told that isn't seen as an issue.
Remember that this vote is all subject to contract. If something fundamentally changed from the terms as we understand them, then things couldn't proceed. |
Yes 'it would be all subject to contract.'
Like the Original Shareholders Agreement?
But then again we might not want to destabilise the club at the time or be worried that the Trust's fighting fund is wiped out. Or be building bridges at the time. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:10 - Jul 23 with 1766 views | monmouth |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:59 - Jul 23 by londonlisa2001 |
I'm sure that again protections could be inserted.
But any action if breach occurs would then need to be taken in Delaware, and believe me, if the Trust thinks legal action is expensive here, to take action as a Uk Trust in Delaware against a Delaware corporation is a whole new ballgame as they'd say.
The other issue is it would seem to me that preventing buying and selling of shares in that corporation (effectively treating it as an investment fund so the whole isn't sold) is very hard, particularly as it's difficult to tell if shares have been sold when no one knows who owns them. |
It just seems to me that if we deal or go status quo, we are voting to lash ourselves over the barrel and have to take any shafting that the Americans and their faceless backers - and none of us trust them do we? - decide to give us. If we won't take legal action now, realistically we never will, so 'protections' are pretty much marginal.
I have been agonising for a while, adding support to legal action on here, hoping to be argued out of it, as I so much want a meaningful and active Trust involved in the club, and some of the people currently involved to be there somewhere in the hierarchy as I know that they love the club, unlike the other tossers old and new, that have brought us here.
But, and this is with a very heavy heart indeed, I have thought about what I would do if I were back in business and negotiating these options and made up my mind.
It is legal for me. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:14 - Jul 23 with 1759 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:01 - Jul 23 by Nookiejack |
Yes 'it would be all subject to contract.'
Like the Original Shareholders Agreement?
But then again we might not want to destabilise the club at the time or be worried that the Trust's fighting fund is wiped out. Or be building bridges at the time. |
God forbid we should look at all pros and cons and all scenarios eh. Iesu Mawr. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:21 - Jul 23 with 1746 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:14 - Jul 23 by Uxbridge |
God forbid we should look at all pros and cons and all scenarios eh. Iesu Mawr. |
Your post suggested we would take legal action next time.
The point is if you don't take it now with the QC stating it is a strong case - then you will never take legal action.
Unless the Trust stands up for itself and takes the risk - it will be walked ovee.
If we personally held sharea in BP or Apple and those companies were sold - what we would do if all the other shareholders received a better offer for their shares than we did?
You are letting the rich corporate big boys get away with exploiting the fans. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:24 - Jul 23 with 1736 views | Darran |
I can't lie I basically lost all interest when I discovered the Chairman of a multi-million pound company wouldn't be tried in a court of law on fraud charges. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:45 - Jul 23 with 1702 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:24 - Jul 23 by Darran |
I can't lie I basically lost all interest when I discovered the Chairman of a multi-million pound company wouldn't be tried in a court of law on fraud charges. |
Were the Police or Serious Fraud office (whoever deals with that crap) ever asked to investigate?
Sorry to use your quote Dar, but you do raise a valid point.
And could get us all sweet justice if the EX board and especially Dimwit and Jenkins were charged or even investigated | |
| 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 12:49 - Jul 23 with 1691 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:45 - Jul 23 by Dewi1jack |
Were the Police or Serious Fraud office (whoever deals with that crap) ever asked to investigate?
Sorry to use your quote Dar, but you do raise a valid point.
And could get us all sweet justice if the EX board and especially Dimwit and Jenkins were charged or even investigated |
Well as I've said before I can't get my head around the fact that the Trust have stated publically that Jenkins verbally asked them to rip up the shareholders agreement and then put it in writing through his solicitor and it matters not one jot. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:59 - Jul 23 with 1646 views | marchamjack |
The longer all this drags on, and it will, because the vote deadline is a little while away, the more I'm coming round to the view that the litigation route is going to win the day.
Just following what's being said on here, and on twitter (where other members like me are debating things too), I think the shit or bust route is gaining some momentum, from when the voting scenarios first all arose.
We seem to be in time where expected voting patterns are being ripped up (Brexit/ Trump/even Corbyn to an extent) and I really get the feeling our vote may be heading in a similar direction too.
As Monmouth (I think) said above, if we vote status quo/take the deal, that's it, we'll just get passed round from there, pillar to post like the proverbial used old hag. Short term gain (maybe/hopefully) set against a likely long term pain (when at some inevitable point the Yanks sell us on and the next owners will care even less for the Trust, if at all).
I'm genuinely struggling to think of any vote, ever, on any front, I've agonised over longer!! |  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:14 - Jul 23 with 1624 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:59 - Jul 23 by marchamjack |
The longer all this drags on, and it will, because the vote deadline is a little while away, the more I'm coming round to the view that the litigation route is going to win the day.
Just following what's being said on here, and on twitter (where other members like me are debating things too), I think the shit or bust route is gaining some momentum, from when the voting scenarios first all arose.
We seem to be in time where expected voting patterns are being ripped up (Brexit/ Trump/even Corbyn to an extent) and I really get the feeling our vote may be heading in a similar direction too.
As Monmouth (I think) said above, if we vote status quo/take the deal, that's it, we'll just get passed round from there, pillar to post like the proverbial used old hag. Short term gain (maybe/hopefully) set against a likely long term pain (when at some inevitable point the Yanks sell us on and the next owners will care even less for the Trust, if at all).
I'm genuinely struggling to think of any vote, ever, on any front, I've agonised over longer!! |
I honestly think its an easy decision, and hope you are right regarding litigation making a strong move.
Can anyone give me any pros regarding keeping things the same or taking the deal? Neither give any influence as we have seen with the friendly ticket pricing in which the Trust made their feelings clear to no avail, neither brings any amount of money that enables us to do anything with and neither gives us any sort of meaningful protection for the shares we hold or will have remaining and coukd be booted out of the club at anytime on their terms
How is the above even slightly acceptable in any sort of way?
The biggest concern I have is the Trust have their own individual member votes and also the votes of the undecided due to their awfully thought out notion of a recommendation. So the litigation route is up against it. I have seen and heard many say that they are unsure so are going with the recommendation.
So it isnt really a vote that represents what members want, its a vote that represents the Trust boards wishes. It should have been a completely independant vote free of any sort of swaying, weighted language and coercion.
Those who were unsure then only had the option to note vote or look deeper and come to their own decisions, as it is the Trust board members vote is worth 10,20,30 times that of anyone elses, depending on how many allow The Board to essentially have their vote as they don't themselves know. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 14:18]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:37 - Jul 23 with 1588 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:14 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
I honestly think its an easy decision, and hope you are right regarding litigation making a strong move.
Can anyone give me any pros regarding keeping things the same or taking the deal? Neither give any influence as we have seen with the friendly ticket pricing in which the Trust made their feelings clear to no avail, neither brings any amount of money that enables us to do anything with and neither gives us any sort of meaningful protection for the shares we hold or will have remaining and coukd be booted out of the club at anytime on their terms
How is the above even slightly acceptable in any sort of way?
The biggest concern I have is the Trust have their own individual member votes and also the votes of the undecided due to their awfully thought out notion of a recommendation. So the litigation route is up against it. I have seen and heard many say that they are unsure so are going with the recommendation.
So it isnt really a vote that represents what members want, its a vote that represents the Trust boards wishes. It should have been a completely independant vote free of any sort of swaying, weighted language and coercion.
Those who were unsure then only had the option to note vote or look deeper and come to their own decisions, as it is the Trust board members vote is worth 10,20,30 times that of anyone elses, depending on how many allow The Board to essentially have their vote as they don't themselves know. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 14:18]
|
The members can really help the Trust Board.
By voting for legal action it will put the Trust Board in a much stronger negotiating position.
By the Trust Board recommending the Yanks's low ball offer - they much be corncered about the costs of the case and the low chance of losing I.e. The Trust can still lose the case even though the QC thinks it is strong.
It would be interesting if the recommendation would have been different if Trust has £10m in the Bank. I think it would be and that's what irritates me a rich Venture Capitalists are exploiting the situation. They don't think the Trust will take the risk - hence have made the low ball offer. (They wouldn't have made any offer at all if they thought they were in a 'strong' position).
However if the members decide to take litigation it becomes the members decison - so it then strengthens the Trust Board's position when negotiating with the Yanks. With the risk then being taken away from the Trust Board (the members have decided) - it should really release all shackles. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
