| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? 14:47 - Aug 17 with 7525 views | Darran |
Now I know there were several people involved in the sale of the club to the Americans but apparently only one,Huw Jenkins went down the legal route of asking the Trust to rip up the Shareholders Agreement so to keep things simple I'm just going to use Huw Jenkins as the example.
Huw Jenkins verbally asks the Trust to rip up the Shareholders Agreement,then he makes it all official and his solicitor writes to the Trust asking them to rip up the Shareholders Agreement to smoothly push the sale through and the Trust refuses.
Then in the Fans Forum with the two American owners at the Liberty they state in front of everyone that Jenkins told them to keep everything quiet so the Trust wouldn't find out what was going on behind their backs.
So my question is how isn't it a criminal act when a Chairman of a multi-million pound company,any company acts like this?
What am I missing here because it's the one thing I can't get my head around? |  |
| |  |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:22 - Aug 17 with 3453 views | SwansNZ |
Well, the Trust would be the victim, but have they reported it to the police?
I have no idea if it would be a criminal or civil offence, but it does not look right that people can get away with this. |  |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:29 - Aug 17 with 3421 views | Flashberryjack |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:22 - Aug 17 by SwansNZ |
Well, the Trust would be the victim, but have they reported it to the police?
I have no idea if it would be a criminal or civil offence, but it does not look right that people can get away with this. |
Far to many beans to spill I'm afraid, there was never ever going to be any legal litigation, as I, and others have said on here on many occasions. |  |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:31 - Aug 17 with 3414 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:22 - Aug 17 by SwansNZ |
Well, the Trust would be the victim, but have they reported it to the police?
I have no idea if it would be a criminal or civil offence, but it does not look right that people can get away with this. |
I don't know but surely no Chairman of any multi-million pound company can act like this to line his own pockets?
Like I say I must be missing something because I genuinely don't get it. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:31 - Aug 17 with 3411 views | jack2jack |
You cant just rip up a shareholders agreement, unless all parties agree.
And I think i'm right in saying (or not) that the trust would have been party to the SHA.(being a shareholder)
That being the case something doesn't hang together, does it, based on what has been said. 
Mind you i'am a bit thick! |  | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:34 - Aug 17 with 3392 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:29 - Aug 17 by Flashberryjack |
Far to many beans to spill I'm afraid, there was never ever going to be any legal litigation, as I, and others have said on here on many occasions. |
Forget the Trust for a minute Flash,why isn't it criminal? | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:34 - Aug 17 with 3387 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:31 - Aug 17 by jack2jack |
You cant just rip up a shareholders agreement, unless all parties agree.
And I think i'm right in saying (or not) that the trust would have been party to the SHA.(being a shareholder)
That being the case something doesn't hang together, does it, based on what has been said.
Mind you i'am a bit thick! |
You're not the only one then. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:38 - Aug 17 with 3361 views | Vetchfielder |
Agreed Darran. It's not "right" is it.
I don't know how these things work but maybe some brave person needs to go independently to the police and say, ow, can you just read this stuff , is this criminal?
I haven't got the balls to do it but you'd think an organisation like for instance a Supporters Trust would. But they are about to sign something that says they will not take legal action but I wonder if that only means civil action? |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:45 - Aug 17 with 3309 views | EasternJack |
Darran- i'd come at the question another way to try and make sense.
What would make the select few at the head of the Trust not to immediately take HJ to task on this clumsy and illegal move? (And continue to protect him with this latest vote)
I'd question the relationship these guys had (have?) with the old board. Both personally as well as professionally (some via third parties). The HC episode is well known (and pretty damning), however what's forgotten is how vehemently the trust denied the same rumours for years leading up to him being correctly called out.
There clearly was a personal connect between the old board and the trust - which explains why HJ would be comfortable in making a frankly ridiculous request to tear up the SA agreement (a really clumsy move if everything was ethically above board).
I sense this was a tipping point in the relationship - even more so after HC was kicked out. But the brazen way this latest vote was pushed through suggests it needs looking at again. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:50 - Aug 17 with 3283 views | Jack_y_Jwc |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:38 - Aug 17 by Vetchfielder |
Agreed Darran. It's not "right" is it.
I don't know how these things work but maybe some brave person needs to go independently to the police and say, ow, can you just read this stuff , is this criminal?
I haven't got the balls to do it but you'd think an organisation like for instance a Supporters Trust would. But they are about to sign something that says they will not take legal action but I wonder if that only means civil action? |
Are they separate issues? I don't think the latest vote was against HJ so it's not too late to go after him/them? |  |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:51 - Aug 17 with 3277 views | westwalesed |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:45 - Aug 17 by EasternJack |
Darran- i'd come at the question another way to try and make sense.
What would make the select few at the head of the Trust not to immediately take HJ to task on this clumsy and illegal move? (And continue to protect him with this latest vote)
I'd question the relationship these guys had (have?) with the old board. Both personally as well as professionally (some via third parties). The HC episode is well known (and pretty damning), however what's forgotten is how vehemently the trust denied the same rumours for years leading up to him being correctly called out.
There clearly was a personal connect between the old board and the trust - which explains why HJ would be comfortable in making a frankly ridiculous request to tear up the SA agreement (a really clumsy move if everything was ethically above board).
I sense this was a tipping point in the relationship - even more so after HC was kicked out. But the brazen way this latest vote was pushed through suggests it needs looking at again. |
Excellent points and excellent to look at things from the opposite perspective. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:06 - Aug 17 with 3214 views | Loyal |
Huw and 4 others went for the sale disregarding the agreements in place.
A few others didn't like it and got the sack ( litigation ongoing )
Everyone made millions.
The east stand sings ' ............ ( whoever ) barmy army '
And nobody gives a fck.
That's about it. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:11 - Aug 17 with 3184 views | swanseajack4eva |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:45 - Aug 17 by EasternJack |
Darran- i'd come at the question another way to try and make sense.
What would make the select few at the head of the Trust not to immediately take HJ to task on this clumsy and illegal move? (And continue to protect him with this latest vote)
I'd question the relationship these guys had (have?) with the old board. Both personally as well as professionally (some via third parties). The HC episode is well known (and pretty damning), however what's forgotten is how vehemently the trust denied the same rumours for years leading up to him being correctly called out.
There clearly was a personal connect between the old board and the trust - which explains why HJ would be comfortable in making a frankly ridiculous request to tear up the SA agreement (a really clumsy move if everything was ethically above board).
I sense this was a tipping point in the relationship - even more so after HC was kicked out. But the brazen way this latest vote was pushed through suggests it needs looking at again. |
Great post. |  | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:22 - Aug 17 with 3136 views | Private_Partz |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:31 - Aug 17 by Darran |
I don't know but surely no Chairman of any multi-million pound company can act like this to line his own pockets?
Like I say I must be missing something because I genuinely don't get it. |
I don't get it either.
One of the reasons I didn't vote was the issue of Jenkins getting away with it v disruption to the club and the possible loss of our top flight status. I didn't know what was the best so I opted out.
Your question is very valid however and I too still have concerns. |  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:24 - Aug 17 with 3129 views | Flashberryjack |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:34 - Aug 17 by Darran |
Forget the Trust for a minute Flash,why isn't it criminal? |
I'm certainly no expert, but not abiding by the rules of a contract is not necessarily a criminal offence, therefore the police wouldn't take action.
Contractual disputes would be heard under civil law.
criminal law
In criminal law, a guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison, (2) fine paid to the government, or, in exceptional cases, (3) execution of the defendant: the death penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes: felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one year incarceration, misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than one year incarceration.
civil law
In contrast, a defendant in civil litigation is never incarcerated and never executed. In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.
So-called punitive damages are never awarded in a civil case under contract law. In a civil case under tort law, there is a possibility of punitive damages, if the defendant's conduct is egregious and had either (1) a malicious intent (i.e., desire to cause harm), (2) gross negligence (i.e., conscious indifference), or (3) a willful disregard for the rights of others. The use of punitive damages makes a public example of the defendant and supposedly deters future wrongful conduct by others. Punitive damages are particularly important in torts involving dignitary harms (e.g., invasion of privacy) and civil rights, where the actual monetary injury to plaintiff(s) may be small.
One can purchase insurance that will pay damages and attorney's fees for tort claims. Such insurance coverage is a standard part of homeowner's insurance policies, automobile insurance, and insurance for businesses. In contrast, it is not possible for a defendant to purchase insurance to pay for his/her criminal acts.
While a court can order a defendant to pay damages, the plaintiff may receive nothing if the defendant has no assets and no insurance, or if the defendant is skillful in concealing assets. In this way, large awards for plaintiffs in tort cases are often an illusion. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:28 - Aug 17 with 3107 views | longlostjack |
Something definitely doesn't add up. |  |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:31 - Aug 17 with 3090 views | Loyal |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:28 - Aug 17 by longlostjack |
Something definitely doesn't add up. |
Fcking does if your Huws bank manager. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:52 - Aug 17 with 3033 views | Private_Partz |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:31 - Aug 17 by Loyal |
Fcking does if your Huws bank manager. |
'This is what gets my goat. Jenkins has acted in the way he has, lined his pockets, and still has a very well paid post within the club. A post he appears to be making a right dogs dinner of.
It seems to be he was always going to get his payday as a result of his earlier efforts to save the club. He conveniently forgot about all the work of others who also put the efforts in nevertheless.
Once they had sold out the Trust should have been given the choice to cash in or retain their stake. They were not but now, as a result of rattling a few cages, the oppprtunity to cash in has arrived.
The sell outs wanted their pay day and purposely marginalised the Trust so they could not repeat history and scupper the whole deal.
We are now left with owners we are rightly suspicious of and a DOF whose competence we doubt and whose ethics we think stinks.
Unfortunately there is no press interest in this. Neither is there within the greater supporters base who would still happily chant 'we love our Chairman' I would guess...... | |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:57 - Aug 17 with 3004 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 15:45 - Aug 17 by EasternJack |
Darran- i'd come at the question another way to try and make sense.
What would make the select few at the head of the Trust not to immediately take HJ to task on this clumsy and illegal move? (And continue to protect him with this latest vote)
I'd question the relationship these guys had (have?) with the old board. Both personally as well as professionally (some via third parties). The HC episode is well known (and pretty damning), however what's forgotten is how vehemently the trust denied the same rumours for years leading up to him being correctly called out.
There clearly was a personal connect between the old board and the trust - which explains why HJ would be comfortable in making a frankly ridiculous request to tear up the SA agreement (a really clumsy move if everything was ethically above board).
I sense this was a tipping point in the relationship - even more so after HC was kicked out. But the brazen way this latest vote was pushed through suggests it needs looking at again. |
Mate I completely understand what you're saying but take the Trust out of it for a minute,forget about the Trust.
Wouldn't documents or whatever have had to have been deposited at Companies House of something? Wouldn't there have been teams of lawyers involved negotiating the deal. How come none of these know how the deal was brokered?
Plus as I understand it there's other documents posted 'off shore' as such in Delaware.
Like I say I'm far from knowledgeable on this kind of thing but it just doesn't sound right to someone like me your everyday punter. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:12 - Aug 17 with 2944 views | EasternJack |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:57 - Aug 17 by Darran |
Mate I completely understand what you're saying but take the Trust out of it for a minute,forget about the Trust.
Wouldn't documents or whatever have had to have been deposited at Companies House of something? Wouldn't there have been teams of lawyers involved negotiating the deal. How come none of these know how the deal was brokered?
Plus as I understand it there's other documents posted 'off shore' as such in Delaware.
Like I say I'm far from knowledgeable on this kind of thing but it just doesn't sound right to someone like me your everyday punter. |
I get your point - but the trust are material to the question as they would be the catalyst for any complaint leading to any action. It was their shareholding that was being put at risk and protection agreements involving them that were ignored.
No complaint from the trust means no investigation. HJ is clean as a whistle.
Baffling [Post edited 17 Aug 2017 17:15]
| |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:38 - Aug 17 with 2850 views | xmastree |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 16:06 - Aug 17 by Loyal |
Huw and 4 others went for the sale disregarding the agreements in place.
A few others didn't like it and got the sack ( litigation ongoing )
Everyone made millions.
The east stand sings ' ............ ( whoever ) barmy army '
And nobody gives a fck.
That's about it. |
Just a point of order loyal. The 2 directors who left were not sacked as far as i know and they were not shareholders so a shareholders agreement meant nothing to them. They left because they were no longer going to be directors.
It is also worth pointing out at this time that the old shareholders agreement was not signed by all meaning those that did not sign it are not bound by it.
Darren. Without any of us actually seeing the agreement it is hard to know if there was something untoward. Why ? Because the agreement might not have had drag along rights in it etc. It might have said that shares being sold should be offered to others but if thats the case then im not sure its criminal more likely civil. | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:44 - Aug 17 with 2835 views | londonlisa2001 |
Darran, there are several issues getting mixed up here.
Firstly. If the sellers acted in breach of the shareholders' agreement, by ignoring provisions about right of first refusal, that is a matter of contract law and is subject to a civil case being brought against them by the wronged party. That, in this case, is the Trust. Damages could be awarded to compensate the Trust for any financial loss arising as a result of the breach.
On this issue, the Trust have maintained that the breach is somewhat irrelevant as they had no ability to take advantage of the right of first refusal even if it was offered to them.
Secondly. The Articles of Association of the Conpany were changed without the Trust agreeing to it. In itself, this is not an issue as Articles can be changed by the vote of 75% of shareholders and the Trust did not have enough shares to stop it happening. However. The correct notices were not given to the Trust to allow them to vote, and irrespective of their vote being worthless (as stated), this failure is a breach of the Companies Act. Any breach of the Companies Act, is technically a criminal offence, although IN PRACTICE the remedy is sought under civil law rather than criminal law.
Again, the Trust have not chosen to pursue action on this matter. As the wronged party, they are the ones able to take action but have not done so. I believe the argument was once again that in practical terms it made no difference as they couldn't stop the vote.
Thirdly. The transaction as structured, did not allow the Trust as shareholders, to participate in the deal. The structure meant that the Trust's chance of ever monetising or achieving value for their shareholding was prejudiced, unfairly (in the view of legal counsel).
The Trust have not chosen to pursue this legal action.
It's pointless asking about this all the time, as the only party who can do anything about any of it have chosen, for whatever reason, not to. [Post edited 17 Aug 2017 17:48]
| | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:48 - Aug 17 with 2810 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:44 - Aug 17 by londonlisa2001 |
Darran, there are several issues getting mixed up here.
Firstly. If the sellers acted in breach of the shareholders' agreement, by ignoring provisions about right of first refusal, that is a matter of contract law and is subject to a civil case being brought against them by the wronged party. That, in this case, is the Trust. Damages could be awarded to compensate the Trust for any financial loss arising as a result of the breach.
On this issue, the Trust have maintained that the breach is somewhat irrelevant as they had no ability to take advantage of the right of first refusal even if it was offered to them.
Secondly. The Articles of Association of the Conpany were changed without the Trust agreeing to it. In itself, this is not an issue as Articles can be changed by the vote of 75% of shareholders and the Trust did not have enough shares to stop it happening. However. The correct notices were not given to the Trust to allow them to vote, and irrespective of their vote being worthless (as stated), this failure is a breach of the Companies Act. Any breach of the Companies Act, is technically a criminal offence, although IN PRACTICE the remedy is sought under civil law rather than criminal law.
Again, the Trust have not chosen to pursue action on this matter. As the wronged party, they are the ones able to take action but have not done so. I believe the argument was once again that in practical terms it made no difference as they couldn't stop the vote.
Thirdly. The transaction as structured, did not allow the Trust as shareholders, to participate in the deal. The structure meant that the Trust's chance of ever monetising or achieving value for their shareholding was prejudiced, unfairly (in the view of legal counsel).
The Trust have not chosen to pursue this legal action.
It's pointless asking about this all the time, as the only party who can do anything about any of it have chosen, for whatever reason, not to. [Post edited 17 Aug 2017 17:48]
|
I'm still not understanding why only the Trust are able to take it forward,surely if a company director acts illegally to make himself millions of pounds that's fraud? | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:51 - Aug 17 with 2793 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:48 - Aug 17 by Darran |
I'm still not understanding why only the Trust are able to take it forward,surely if a company director acts illegally to make himself millions of pounds that's fraud? |
Same reason as nothing would happen if you were smacked in the street and refused to press charges Darran.
It's not difficult to understand. | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:54 - Aug 17 with 2770 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:38 - Aug 17 by xmastree |
Just a point of order loyal. The 2 directors who left were not sacked as far as i know and they were not shareholders so a shareholders agreement meant nothing to them. They left because they were no longer going to be directors.
It is also worth pointing out at this time that the old shareholders agreement was not signed by all meaning those that did not sign it are not bound by it.
Darren. Without any of us actually seeing the agreement it is hard to know if there was something untoward. Why ? Because the agreement might not have had drag along rights in it etc. It might have said that shares being sold should be offered to others but if thats the case then im not sure its criminal more likely civil. |
"It is also worth pointing out at this time that the old shareholders agreement was not signed by all meaning those that did not sign it are not bound by it."
That is simply not true. If any and all parties acted as though it existed and they were bound by it, it is irrelevant whether it was signed. There is no requirement under English Law for contracts to be written let alone signed, save in specific circumstances. | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:54 - Aug 17 with 2770 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:51 - Aug 17 by londonlisa2001 |
Same reason as nothing would happen if you were smacked in the street and refused to press charges Darran.
It's not difficult to understand. |
I'm baffled by it all Lis,I'd have thought there'd have been some kind of code of conduct involved for directors of a multi million pound company. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
