| Hello the Trust 11:13 - Jul 19 with 7554 views | DafyddHuw |
I sent you the following question last week, and although you say you'll repond within 48 hrs, I'm still waiting.
So I'll try to get your attention on here -
The candidates for election to the Trust board - how do I find out what their ttitude are to the deal/litigate situation?
I don'r care if they speak Welsh, are MDs of companies or have supporteed the Swans since they were foetuses. But I do want to know what their attitude to our owners is.
Surely in any other type of election we'd have some concept of what candidates stood for. How can I vote for someone when I know feck all about their attitude to the club?
|  | | |  |
| Hello the Trust on 21:20 - Jul 19 with 1058 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 21:08 - Jul 19 by MattG |
Fair enough about the "may" but my point still stands - it's at least as likely that we may sell our remaining shares for more than the currently offered price.
I've only been on the Trust Board since January and have no direct involvement with any discussions with the Americans. I also fully expect not to get re-elected this time around so have absolutely no vested personal interest in retaining Trust involvement in the Club. However, I do genuinely believe that involvement has some benefit and would prefer an arrangement that protects it. I'm also not comfortable, no matter how good the odds appear to be, with gambling the existence of the Trust for a return that may well come anyway.
If there was no offer on the table then I would be shouting as loud as anyone for legal action but the fact that there is changes things for me. It's not a perfect deal but then negotiated settlements very rarely are.
I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it. What I don't respect is your assertion that I can only be disagreeing for selfish reasons. |
I didnt make that assertion. The Trust made their recomendation and continue to give weighted answers because they want a certain outcome, they want to push THEIR opinion through. That by definition is selfish reasons. We can debate all day why certain members want this deal rather than litigation and would imagine it differs from person to person.
also in regards to the following:-
"I am also not comfortable, no matter how good the odds appear to be, with gambling the existence of the Trust for a return that may well come anyway."
A few points..
1) If that is a view shared by the Trust as a whole, why on earth did it waste so much money seeking advice from QC's who then told them that they had a strong case if there was never any desire to go ahead?
2) Why would losing the case mean the Trust ceases to exist? It still retains 21% of a share in the club.
3) If we are weighing up odds of winning the case/us selling for that amount anyway. Then surely us getting relegated before the next sell on (and thus selling for a loss) is far higher than us losing the case?
It seems at every turn The Trust wants to take the riskiest, less likely option. Cant fathom it. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 21:22]
|  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 21:40 - Jul 19 with 1022 views | MattG |
| Hello the Trust on 21:20 - Jul 19 by E20Jack |
I didnt make that assertion. The Trust made their recomendation and continue to give weighted answers because they want a certain outcome, they want to push THEIR opinion through. That by definition is selfish reasons. We can debate all day why certain members want this deal rather than litigation and would imagine it differs from person to person.
also in regards to the following:-
"I am also not comfortable, no matter how good the odds appear to be, with gambling the existence of the Trust for a return that may well come anyway."
A few points..
1) If that is a view shared by the Trust as a whole, why on earth did it waste so much money seeking advice from QC's who then told them that they had a strong case if there was never any desire to go ahead?
2) Why would losing the case mean the Trust ceases to exist? It still retains 21% of a share in the club.
3) If we are weighing up odds of winning the case/us selling for that amount anyway. Then surely us getting relegated before the next sell on (and thus selling for a loss) is far higher than us losing the case?
It seems at every turn The Trust wants to take the riskiest, less likely option. Cant fathom it. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 21:22]
|
I note that, despite claiming otherwise, you still assert that I must be holding my view for selfish reasons which is disappointing.
You have conveniently ignored the part where I said that, if there was no acceptable offer on the table that I would 100% be in favour of legal action. I was at that point even when the first offer came in. I also never said that view was held by all Trust Board members - I would never presume to speak for them and particularly not in a public forum such as this.
Losing the case would, in all likelihood, take up all of the Trust's current funds and possibly more and there would be absolutely zero reason for the Americans to engage with us in any meaningful way. To all intents and purposes, we would cease to exist.
Different people have different attitudes to risk - that is one reason why most bookies are very rich. |  | | |
| Hello the Trust on 22:10 - Jul 19 with 982 views | swancity |
| Hello the Trust on 21:40 - Jul 19 by MattG |
I note that, despite claiming otherwise, you still assert that I must be holding my view for selfish reasons which is disappointing.
You have conveniently ignored the part where I said that, if there was no acceptable offer on the table that I would 100% be in favour of legal action. I was at that point even when the first offer came in. I also never said that view was held by all Trust Board members - I would never presume to speak for them and particularly not in a public forum such as this.
Losing the case would, in all likelihood, take up all of the Trust's current funds and possibly more and there would be absolutely zero reason for the Americans to engage with us in any meaningful way. To all intents and purposes, we would cease to exist.
Different people have different attitudes to risk - that is one reason why most bookies are very rich. |
From the outset you've (Trust) been trying to force views on the membership so they'll vote in a certain way. That's unacceptable as at no time have balanced viewpoints been given. It's all been weighted in one direction which isn't a good way to conduct this episode. Lots of knowledgeable alternative opinions have been offered and at all times they've been shot down. Pathetic. Carry on being doormats it's all you phucking deserve.. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 22:14 - Jul 19 with 971 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Hello the Trust on 22:10 - Jul 19 by swancity |
From the outset you've (Trust) been trying to force views on the membership so they'll vote in a certain way. That's unacceptable as at no time have balanced viewpoints been given. It's all been weighted in one direction which isn't a good way to conduct this episode. Lots of knowledgeable alternative opinions have been offered and at all times they've been shot down. Pathetic. Carry on being doormats it's all you phucking deserve.. |
Theres a huge difference between "forcing views" and providing guidance to the membership to be fair. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 22:14 - Jul 19 with 970 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 20:18 - Jul 19 by monmouth |
There's a lot that resonates with me in e20s post. We paid and waited a year for a legal opinion that says we have a good case (probably the most positive possible legal opinion) and then the Board advises "nah, we should take an offer that even we are saying -and you are aren't you, publicly and privately - is not a particularly good one, but is the only one we have.
I hate the thought of legal action but I really can't see a choice, and I am quite discomforted by the trust boards position, as I would normally look to follow it. In this case I just can't fathom it though, I just can't. It seems nothing less than bottling out and throwing in a strong hand at the first opponent bluff. If we lose in court, the Trust board will be forgiven and remembered for courage.....throw this lever away for a pat on the head and...well....
Still, I guess that ship has sailed. No recommendation, just facts unspun would have been infinitely preferable for my money. Hey ho. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 20:19]
|
You're assuming that without the legal process, there would have been an offer. Or this offer.
Whatever action the Trust board was in favour of, it would disenfranchise some sections. Couldn't win on that score.
Can only speak for myself really, but I don't really understand the rush to legal action that many want. For me, it's the resort you take when all else has failed. The offer, whilst with some unarguable flaws, whilst continuing the existing rights and access, is better than the alternative ... Which, if all went well, is simply the exit of the Trust from the club. A Trust with £5m+ in the bank guaranteed and 16% in the club is in a much stronger position than today. The deal isn't a vote for the status quo IMO.
Just on the last paragraph, there'll be some documents sent out to the members. One document will be a letter of recommendation which is effectively the recent address. However the other documents will seek to give that balanced and detailed opinion of the options and the pros and cons of each, both in detailed and summary form. No doubt they'll attract their own criticism but they've been developed in good faith. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 22:18]
|  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 22:17 - Jul 19 with 954 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Hello the Trust on 22:14 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
You're assuming that without the legal process, there would have been an offer. Or this offer.
Whatever action the Trust board was in favour of, it would disenfranchise some sections. Couldn't win on that score.
Can only speak for myself really, but I don't really understand the rush to legal action that many want. For me, it's the resort you take when all else has failed. The offer, whilst with some unarguable flaws, whilst continuing the existing rights and access, is better than the alternative ... Which, if all went well, is simply the exit of the Trust from the club. A Trust with £5m+ in the bank guaranteed and 16% in the club is in a much stronger position than today. The deal isn't a vote for the status quo IMO.
Just on the last paragraph, there'll be some documents sent out to the members. One document will be a letter of recommendation which is effectively the recent address. However the other documents will seek to give that balanced and detailed opinion of the options and the pros and cons of each, both in detailed and summary form. No doubt they'll attract their own criticism but they've been developed in good faith. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 22:18]
|
I doubt many of those people calling for the legal route to be pursued will be so quick about it if it were their name next to it.
As long as its somebody elses, then crack on | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 22:23 - Jul 19 with 933 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 22:17 - Jul 19 by PozuelosSideys |
I doubt many of those people calling for the legal route to be pursued will be so quick about it if it were their name next to it.
As long as its somebody elses, then crack on |
I'm surprised there wasn't an expressly anti - deal candidate in the election. Given the volume of the opposition I don't doubt they'd have found people to vote for them. It's a shame.
I'm not going to judge people for how they vote though. As I've said enough times, make your own minds up based on the facts. Like Matt I think mentioned above, if there wasn't a deal I could accept I'd be voting against it too. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 22:36 - Jul 19 with 903 views | Pokerface |
| Hello the Trust on 22:23 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
I'm surprised there wasn't an expressly anti - deal candidate in the election. Given the volume of the opposition I don't doubt they'd have found people to vote for them. It's a shame.
I'm not going to judge people for how they vote though. As I've said enough times, make your own minds up based on the facts. Like Matt I think mentioned above, if there wasn't a deal I could accept I'd be voting against it too. |
I am surprised you are " surprised there wasn't an expressly anti - deal candidate in the election".
I would have been more surprised if one opposition candidate got through.
I am more worried that Mart6 up arrows your posts. JF ? Or another strange one ?
This is all about dotting the i' s and crossing the 't's that due process has been followed. Result predicted and known a while ago for all the wrong reasons unfortunately. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hello the Trust on 22:52 - Jul 19 with 873 views | max936 |
| Hello the Trust on 22:36 - Jul 19 by Pokerface |
I am surprised you are " surprised there wasn't an expressly anti - deal candidate in the election".
I would have been more surprised if one opposition candidate got through.
I am more worried that Mart6 up arrows your posts. JF ? Or another strange one ?
This is all about dotting the i' s and crossing the 't's that due process has been followed. Result predicted and known a while ago for all the wrong reasons unfortunately. |
I agree the decision is all but made, litigation is obviously not palatable to the Trusts Board members and the Yanks knowing this have obviously played a blinder here and put this offer on the table the 5mil up front as won the day irrespective of the rest of the deal being poor, Litigation is a last resort well yes, but get back to the Yanks and insist on them upping the anti, giving guarantees to protect the trusts say on matters and more importantly the protection of the remaining shares. [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 22:54]
|  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 22:55 - Jul 19 with 867 views | E20Jack |
Played like a fiddle. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:03 - Jul 19 with 850 views | JENKINSOUT |
| Hello the Trust on 22:55 - Jul 19 by E20Jack |
Played like a fiddle. |
completely agree with the criticism aimed at the trust board - trying to cosy into the Mericans is a bad idea but I also am like the ones on here who stand and criticise but dont have the balls to stand and make it different
I will renew my Trust membership because I believe in the concept I just wish there were people who would put their money where their very large mouths are (and many of the ones who responded on here recently this is aimed at) me included [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 23:03]
| |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:08 - Jul 19 with 830 views | Pokerface |
| Hello the Trust on 23:03 - Jul 19 by JENKINSOUT |
completely agree with the criticism aimed at the trust board - trying to cosy into the Mericans is a bad idea but I also am like the ones on here who stand and criticise but dont have the balls to stand and make it different
I will renew my Trust membership because I believe in the concept I just wish there were people who would put their money where their very large mouths are (and many of the ones who responded on here recently this is aimed at) me included [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 23:03]
|
It is a closed shop.
Out of interest when was the last time someone not known to the Trust ( a completely new face) got voted on board ? | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:08 - Jul 19 with 830 views | max936 |
| Hello the Trust on 23:03 - Jul 19 by JENKINSOUT |
completely agree with the criticism aimed at the trust board - trying to cosy into the Mericans is a bad idea but I also am like the ones on here who stand and criticise but dont have the balls to stand and make it different
I will renew my Trust membership because I believe in the concept I just wish there were people who would put their money where their very large mouths are (and many of the ones who responded on here recently this is aimed at) me included [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 23:03]
|
The cynic in me is saying that Jenkins the Yanks and the rest are laughing their arses off, I am seriously considering not renewing, I feel that a 12 month has been wasted and at considerable expense, to reach this inevitability. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:10 - Jul 19 with 823 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Hello the Trust on 23:08 - Jul 19 by Pokerface |
It is a closed shop.
Out of interest when was the last time someone not known to the Trust ( a completely new face) got voted on board ? |
Im being a bit of a dullard. Why do you think its a closed shop? (serious question!) | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:16 - Jul 19 with 802 views | MattG |
| Hello the Trust on 23:08 - Jul 19 by Pokerface |
It is a closed shop.
Out of interest when was the last time someone not known to the Trust ( a completely new face) got voted on board ? |
I stood unsuccessfully for election last year and was invited to join the Board as a co-opted member in January when Jim White stood down. That invitation came completely out of the blue and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the existing Board members had ever met me (apart from Phil when he signed my nomination form despite never having met me before).
As an aside, I sincerely hope as many members with as many different viewpoints attend the forum next week. It's too important an issue for people to say "what's the point?" | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 23:18 - Jul 19 with 798 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 22:36 - Jul 19 by Pokerface |
I am surprised you are " surprised there wasn't an expressly anti - deal candidate in the election".
I would have been more surprised if one opposition candidate got through.
I am more worried that Mart6 up arrows your posts. JF ? Or another strange one ?
This is all about dotting the i' s and crossing the 't's that due process has been followed. Result predicted and known a while ago for all the wrong reasons unfortunately. |
God forbid somebody could agree with me eh. Must be a conspiracy!!
This closed shop thing is nonsense though. The current election process couldn't be more free or fair. Any member can stand, assuming they have a few people to nominate them (something I'm always happy to do as a couple of people could testify). Whilst existing board members may say what they've done in their statements, each person gets the same amount of words to get their pitch across. Many will vote for newbies out of principle. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:35 - Jul 19 with 773 views | monmouth |
| Hello the Trust on 22:23 - Jul 19 by Uxbridge |
I'm surprised there wasn't an expressly anti - deal candidate in the election. Given the volume of the opposition I don't doubt they'd have found people to vote for them. It's a shame.
I'm not going to judge people for how they vote though. As I've said enough times, make your own minds up based on the facts. Like Matt I think mentioned above, if there wasn't a deal I could accept I'd be voting against it too. |
That's fair, It's really down to what one thinks of the quality of the deal offered and what that says about the true intentions of the Americans when the legal threat is removed. Personally, I think it speaks volumes.
The bias in the phrase 'rush to legal action' is critically flawed in itself by the way. It could equally be asserted that it is difficult to understand the ''rush to accept a poor deal'. Equally biased phrasing and equally flawed. |  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:37 - Jul 19 with 768 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 23:16 - Jul 19 by MattG |
I stood unsuccessfully for election last year and was invited to join the Board as a co-opted member in January when Jim White stood down. That invitation came completely out of the blue and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the existing Board members had ever met me (apart from Phil when he signed my nomination form despite never having met me before).
As an aside, I sincerely hope as many members with as many different viewpoints attend the forum next week. It's too important an issue for people to say "what's the point?" |
I think as soon as the Trust openly tried to push a certain outcome it became pointless. The fact there will be a further recommendation to push the point even more in this pack - I find shocking.
Without wanting to offend any individuals. A lot of the people who signed up to the Trust as well meaning paid up members - don't have the understanding to weigh up both options and give a well rounded and considered, independant opinion. There are 40+ pages on this forum of people showing they are completely confused by the notions - which of course is totally understandable.
The Trust as an organisation know this too, lets not pretend otherwise. They know that the chances are that the members will vote for their recommendation and have shamelessly pushed it. Which also makes the tens of thousands of pounds (members money) and the countless hours wasted on this legal council incredibly odd. What was the point?
I also think if The Trust was an organisation that is there to act on the wishes of its members, why would they feel the need to make a recommendation at all? Why dont they just give the members the info they need and allow the members to make a decision, an independant decision.
For me the Trust has become (maybe it always has been and I have not noticed) a small group of people making decisions on behalf of a whole fanbase, backed up by the fact that they can then then manipulate the members via wording to back it.
Thats my last say on the matter. The time it takes debating an already determined outcome is as wasted as the tens of thousands on not one QC opinion - but also the seeking of a second. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:41 - Jul 19 with 764 views | Pokerface |
| Hello the Trust on 23:08 - Jul 19 by Pokerface |
It is a closed shop.
Out of interest when was the last time someone not known to the Trust ( a completely new face) got voted on board ? |
I am just curious to the answer to this question. When were they successfully appointed to the board via a vote.
Should be easy answer unless there have been lots. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 23:44 - Jul 19 with 759 views | Pokerface |
| Hello the Trust on 23:16 - Jul 19 by MattG |
I stood unsuccessfully for election last year and was invited to join the Board as a co-opted member in January when Jim White stood down. That invitation came completely out of the blue and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the existing Board members had ever met me (apart from Phil when he signed my nomination form despite never having met me before).
As an aside, I sincerely hope as many members with as many different viewpoints attend the forum next week. It's too important an issue for people to say "what's the point?" |
Thanks for that.
I am just wondering when someone outside the click was successful in a vote. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 06:48 - Jul 20 with 710 views | MattG |
| Hello the Trust on 23:44 - Jul 19 by Pokerface |
Thanks for that.
I am just wondering when someone outside the click was successful in a vote. |
I don't have an answer for you but isn't that more a question for the membership than the Board? Everyone gets a vote.
And if there is a clique, wouldn't it have made more sense to leave Jim's position unfilled rather than deliberately bringing in an "outsider"? | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 07:36 - Jul 20 with 680 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 23:35 - Jul 19 by monmouth |
That's fair, It's really down to what one thinks of the quality of the deal offered and what that says about the true intentions of the Americans when the legal threat is removed. Personally, I think it speaks volumes.
The bias in the phrase 'rush to legal action' is critically flawed in itself by the way. It could equally be asserted that it is difficult to understand the ''rush to accept a poor deal'. Equally biased phrasing and equally flawed. |
That's fair too. I agree many aren't rushing to legal judgement, in the same way many didn't rush to accept the offer.
Some may just take any offer to get this done, just like some may want legal action come what may. Just for the record, I think both of these are flawed. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 07:39 - Jul 20 with 677 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 23:44 - Jul 19 by Pokerface |
Thanks for that.
I am just wondering when someone outside the click was successful in a vote. |
One obvious issue there of course is that there hadn't been an election for years because no-one stood. It's thanks to Matt and Roger last year that that changed. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 08:14 - Jul 20 with 651 views | felixstowe_jack |
From the Trust's latest email hope that helps
We will be holding a members forum at the Liberty Stadium on Thursday 27th July (7.30pm) This will be a chance for members to raise any questions that they have following receipt of their consultation packs and all current members are welcome to attend. For any member who cannot attend who has questions then please email consultation@swanstrust.co.uk and we will answer you. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 08:32 - Jul 20 with 632 views | monmouth |
| Hello the Trust on 07:36 - Jul 20 by Uxbridge |
That's fair too. I agree many aren't rushing to legal judgement, in the same way many didn't rush to accept the offer.
Some may just take any offer to get this done, just like some may want legal action come what may. Just for the record, I think both of these are flawed. |
It's a right bastard. I still haven't really made my mind up. If anything, I'm writing quite strongly for legal action hoping that I can be persuaded against it by the counter arguments. What was the old Irish joke....if I were you, I wouldn't start from here... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
