By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 22:27 - Aug 11 by monmouth
I'm away now for two weeks so I'll just resurrect this baby. Legal action double the others by a massive 16 to 8 on a huge turnout of 25 votes.
I would estimate a confidence level of around 3% and an error rate of plus or minus 3,900%
This polling business is a piece of piss.
I went legal action, but I'd have preferred to have voted for turning the deal down and getting back around table and negotiate a better deal where the Trust would have had more say commensurate with a shareholder with 21% of ownership in the Club and no drag rights, this deal suits the Yanks plays right into their hands if you like for me.
Sounds simple I know, but that's my view on it, another option perhaps would be the Yanks buying the full 21% and the Trust keeping it for a rainy day, its easy looking in through the window than being on the inside though.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 00:15 - Aug 12 by max936
I went legal action, but I'd have preferred to have voted for turning the deal down and getting back around table and negotiate a better deal where the Trust would have had more say commensurate with a shareholder with 21% of ownership in the Club and no drag rights, this deal suits the Yanks plays right into their hands if you like for me.
Sounds simple I know, but that's my view on it, another option perhaps would be the Yanks buying the full 21% and the Trust keeping it for a rainy day, its easy looking in through the window than being on the inside though.
That's where the trust options were disingenuous. Effectively a vote from the membership for legal action would first and foremost put the parties back round the table - this time, with an improved negotiating chip as the Americans would know that no deal would mean legal action. Something I'm sure they want to avoid.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 23:20 - Aug 11 by Swanzay
Im still perplexed how the sell outs can't be taken to account, can you?
Will the Trust actually exist this time next year....
To me the Trust are hell bent on getting members to choose option one.
Its basically committing suicide!
My view is that they are tired and burned out. This is not an attack on them as they have all done more than any other fvcker on here or anywhere else would. Fact is they volunteer their time to the cause, and this situation has overtaken them all. And please don't speak about having 'new blood' because there is no one else prepared to stand up and put in the work that these guys have done. I don't want them too accept this deal, very few on here do, but they are out of their league here. A shame, a great shame. But that folks is the way it is.
4
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 00:40 - Aug 12 with 2576 views
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 00:21 - Aug 12 by EasternJack
That's where the trust options were disingenuous. Effectively a vote from the membership for legal action would first and foremost put the parties back round the table - this time, with an improved negotiating chip as the Americans would know that no deal would mean legal action. Something I'm sure they want to avoid.
Disingenuous towards who the membership or the Yanks? If you mean the Yanks and the sellouts I couldn't give a toss after the way the club was sold, I can't believe that the sellouts have got away with either, I'm surprised that the Premier League haven't taken it up themselves, surely laws have been broken, if not criminal surely there must be some stipulations within football towards what happened, the Trust doesn't seem to have any help or guidance from the football world, hardly surprising though with the way football is has been run, FIFA being a prime example.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 00:15 - Aug 12 by max936
I went legal action, but I'd have preferred to have voted for turning the deal down and getting back around table and negotiate a better deal where the Trust would have had more say commensurate with a shareholder with 21% of ownership in the Club and no drag rights, this deal suits the Yanks plays right into their hands if you like for me.
Sounds simple I know, but that's my view on it, another option perhaps would be the Yanks buying the full 21% and the Trust keeping it for a rainy day, its easy looking in through the window than being on the inside though.
I went legal too Max, but the Trust seem to me to doing all they can to encourage members to avoid.
Can someone please clarify?
They have been truly shafted, yet still want to bow down, like its given up!
Why cant we take legal action against the sell out outs...
To me that would be far better form of action.
Can anyone from the Trust clarify!
0
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 00:50 - Aug 12 with 2562 views
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 00:21 - Aug 12 by EasternJack
That's where the trust options were disingenuous. Effectively a vote from the membership for legal action would first and foremost put the parties back round the table - this time, with an improved negotiating chip as the Americans would know that no deal would mean legal action. Something I'm sure they want to avoid.
Well said, put the threat there at least!
0
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 02:12 - Aug 12 with 2535 views
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 00:40 - Aug 12 by max936
Disingenuous towards who the membership or the Yanks? If you mean the Yanks and the sellouts I couldn't give a toss after the way the club was sold, I can't believe that the sellouts have got away with either, I'm surprised that the Premier League haven't taken it up themselves, surely laws have been broken, if not criminal surely there must be some stipulations within football towards what happened, the Trust doesn't seem to have any help or guidance from the football world, hardly surprising though with the way football is has been run, FIFA being a prime example.
Disingenuous - as in, the options and supporting narrative were not objective, to the point that scare tactics (we might lose, we might spend all our money, we might get ostracised etc)were used to try and steer the membership to the "preferred" option. None of this was evidenced.
What I feel hasn't been answered is what happens after the deal is done? From what I can see, the majority owners will have zero motivationto engage with the Trust once we sign away our right to pursue what should have been on the table 12 months ago. The trust will just be a shell, waiting to be told when to sell their shares whenever it's in the Americans interest.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 02:12 - Aug 12 by EasternJack
Disingenuous - as in, the options and supporting narrative were not objective, to the point that scare tactics (we might lose, we might spend all our money, we might get ostracised etc)were used to try and steer the membership to the "preferred" option. None of this was evidenced.
What I feel hasn't been answered is what happens after the deal is done? From what I can see, the majority owners will have zero motivationto engage with the Trust once we sign away our right to pursue what should have been on the table 12 months ago. The trust will just be a shell, waiting to be told when to sell their shares whenever it's in the Americans interest.
Is this ththe Trust's purpose?
Good post that and very well put, more or less my view as well and basically what I was trying to say.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 22:27 - Aug 11 by monmouth
I'm away now for two weeks so I'll just resurrect this baby. Legal action double the others by a massive 16 to 8 on a huge turnout of 25 votes.
I would estimate a confidence level of around 3% and an error rate of plus or minus 3,900%
This polling business is a piece of piss.
Enjoy your cruise Monny. Still time to have a word with the skipper and get him to sail at 17:30 so you can make the game. Short trip from the stadium to the docks!
Easy part was voting to reject the deal. Absolute no brainer and voted against as soon as I'd read the offer near enough.
Fair play to the Trust (Cheers Ux!) on answering my questions as I couldn't make the forum. Didn't make it much easier, but voted with a heavy heart for legal action. Would rather not see the club go through the courts, but, if we want to have a strong Trust that is treated as a 21% shareholder, then that may be the only way to get the Merrycans back around the table.
Drag rights worry me, as we couldn't do our own due diligence in the first place thanks to Dimwit and the rest of the sell out scum b'stards, now we have no chance of even finding out about the next buyers.
I read in the week that Crystal Palace (a similar size club to our own, same precarious position every season) maybe bought/ being taken over for £200 million by Adams and a Chinese consortium. Adams and his chums have been desperate for any club for a few years now. Looks like Dimwit, Capt Beaky, the Dutch clown et al undervalued the club and could have made more money if they'd have done things properly. Every cloud has a silver lining I s'pose. Even if it's just a small petty one!
The c**ts really should be getting pelters every game next season. Seems like the only way to get revenge on the b'stards, is to get them to stay away from the ground, even though they're shareholders.
If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious.
2
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 10:42 - Aug 12 with 2421 views
The trust board are determined no legal action happens or more so threatened which is even more suspicious, the reasons we can only guess.
One way or the other they will make this happen,but then mark my words the Yanks and the sellout cants will go laughing into the sunset thinking what a naive bunch of idiots Swansea fans are and within 2 years we will all be saying how the feck were we so stupid ? we should have taken action.
We know,theyknow,the whole fecking world knows they fecked up and broke the law,we pay big money to get it confirmed that we have a very good case and still like cowards some still want to pretend nothing happened. I will book mark this thread and see where we are in 2 years,it will be interesting.
1
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 11:59 - Aug 12 with 2364 views
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 00:44 - Aug 12 by Swanzay
I went legal too Max, but the Trust seem to me to doing all they can to encourage members to avoid.
Can someone please clarify?
They have been truly shafted, yet still want to bow down, like its given up!
Why cant we take legal action against the sell out outs...
To me that would be far better form of action.
Can anyone from the Trust clarify!
My guess is that the supposed 'cut and dry' litigation option purported on here isn't quite as cut and dry as it seems. There's nobody on here that would like more than seeing the sell out shìts getting their comeuppance, however this looks unlikely.
My biggest fear is that any judge would look without emotion and view the following:
- the newco have invited Stu Mac to the board. They didn't have to. - they've allowed an observer on to the board. - they've engaged in dialogue and extensive ADR.
the judge may view this is adequate negotiation on their part. The only way for redress is for the breach of the articles to be brought out in to the open.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 11:59 - Aug 12 by waynekerr55
My guess is that the supposed 'cut and dry' litigation option purported on here isn't quite as cut and dry as it seems. There's nobody on here that would like more than seeing the sell out shìts getting their comeuppance, however this looks unlikely.
My biggest fear is that any judge would look without emotion and view the following:
- the newco have invited Stu Mac to the board. They didn't have to. - they've allowed an observer on to the board. - they've engaged in dialogue and extensive ADR.
the judge may view this is adequate negotiation on their part. The only way for redress is for the breach of the articles to be brought out in to the open.
Just my thoughts.
Those 3 points are good points, but are they just paying lip service all well and good having Stu Mac on the board, but if his views aren't listened to or disregarded what's the point, the thing is nobody knows what the real outcome will be if the deal is signed off, hidden agenda's and all that, I wouldn't trust any of that lot to put water in the Budgie's cage.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 12:32 - Aug 12 by max936
Those 3 points are good points, but are they just paying lip service all well and good having Stu Mac on the board, but if his views aren't listened to or disregarded what's the point, the thing is nobody knows what the real outcome will be if the deal is signed off, hidden agenda's and all that, I wouldn't trust any of that lot to put water in the Budgie's cage.
That's the point though Max, lip service or not it isn't for the judge or the law to delve into the minuscia of the workings of the business. They simply don't have the resources, will power nor is it politically driven.
Whilst he or she may empathise, they have to interpret objectively in line with previous case law
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 12:42 - Aug 12 by waynekerr55
That's the point though Max, lip service or not it isn't for the judge or the law to delve into the minuscia of the workings of the business. They simply don't have the resources, will power nor is it politically driven.
Whilst he or she may empathise, they have to interpret objectively in line with previous case law
Voted to take legal action a short while back. John Van Zweden’s online baiting of SCFC supporters and Trust members showed the complete and utter CONTEMPT and DISRESPECT the sell-outs have for US all.
The Morgan/Van Zweden travelling club arrangement that’s has been aided and abetted by Jenkins and Yanks was a /major influencing factor in my decision to vote for legal action. Basically they’re a bunch of lowlifes who deserve to have a huge black cloud above them.
[Post edited 12 Aug 2017 16:25]
Argus!
3
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 13:46 - Aug 12 with 2268 views
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 11:59 - Aug 12 by waynekerr55
My guess is that the supposed 'cut and dry' litigation option purported on here isn't quite as cut and dry as it seems. There's nobody on here that would like more than seeing the sell out shìts getting their comeuppance, however this looks unlikely.
My biggest fear is that any judge would look without emotion and view the following:
- the newco have invited Stu Mac to the board. They didn't have to. - they've allowed an observer on to the board. - they've engaged in dialogue and extensive ADR.
the judge may view this is adequate negotiation on their part. The only way for redress is for the breach of the articles to be brought out in to the open.
Just my thoughts.
AS you say not totally cut & dry.
One question I did ask in the very long thread, was what would happen if the Trust won, but the owners said they didn't have the £xm to buy the Trust shares.
Yet another owner?
0
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 15:46 - Aug 12 with 2220 views
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 13:34 - Aug 12 by Wingstandwood
Voted to take legal action a short while back. John Van Zweden’s online baiting of SCFC supporters and Trust members showed the complete and utter CONTEMPT and DISRESPECT the sell-outs have for US all.
The Morgan/Van Zweden travelling club arrangement that’s has been aided and abetted by Jenkins and Yanks was a /major influencing factor in my decision to vote for legal action. Basically they’re a bunch of lowlifes who deserve to have a huge black cloud above them.
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 15:46 - Aug 12 by max936
Superb post
Thanks! I know two other people who have voted for legal action and were heavily influenced by the utter PR-own goal of Morgan's/Van Zweden’s travel club arrangement and other stuff etc. That greedy, grubby and insulting travel club arrangement that notorious late ticket tout Stan Flashman would be proud of. The despicable standards of individuals at boardroom level hey? Appalling stuff involving appalling standards totally unbefitting of board/ex board members!
Van Zwedens online Twitter baiting and other stuff like Katzens baiting i.e. picture with ‘two-bob’ Morgan’s Hotel drinking traitor Cooze is all own goal stuff of highest order. And? Chairman Jenkins made no effort whatsoever to have a quiet word in people’s ears. To reap what has been sown hey!
Argus!
1
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 15:46 - Aug 14 with 1937 views
TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote on 21:08 - Aug 12 by Wingstandwood
Thanks! I know two other people who have voted for legal action and were heavily influenced by the utter PR-own goal of Morgan's/Van Zweden’s travel club arrangement and other stuff etc. That greedy, grubby and insulting travel club arrangement that notorious late ticket tout Stan Flashman would be proud of. The despicable standards of individuals at boardroom level hey? Appalling stuff involving appalling standards totally unbefitting of board/ex board members!
Van Zwedens online Twitter baiting and other stuff like Katzens baiting i.e. picture with ‘two-bob’ Morgan’s Hotel drinking traitor Cooze is all own goal stuff of highest order. And? Chairman Jenkins made no effort whatsoever to have a quiet word in people’s ears. To reap what has been sown hey!
The problem is the sellouts are not the ones who will be in court. They will not be affected by this...the club will but not HJ,LD,JVZ et al
Thats hwat so many miss...the whole episode is a lose lose in my eyes
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
