| The biggest problem 19:51 - Sep 11 with 12746 views | swansealad69 |
At the club is huw jenkings
The guy is clearly money mad.
The sooner this guy goes the better
He has sold the club to a investment company who are only intrested in profit and to sell on
Huw must have known this thats why it was all done behind the trust back
So what does huw gain
Well sold most his shares for millions
Gets a well paid job
All the bonuses from being a prem chairman playing high and mighty but yet a failed business man
And has kept shares in order to sell on to the next buyer.
He is keeping the club in the black by selling our players and gambling on bring lesser players in at half the price or on loan to keep us up
If it works he gets a bonus and when the yanks have had most ther money back will sell the club for more then they paid and the rat huw sell hos remaining share for another payout.
Only 54 years back we were 1 off the best footballing sides in Europe
Now we have no wingers no idea players on loan to fill the gaps off players we sold
A striker who has been out for 3 years lost.
Yet huw says the club and squad are in the best shape ever.
When are others going to wake the feck up and realise this rat needs gone
Stop interference with the playing staff.
|  | | |  |
| The biggest problem on 18:11 - Sep 12 with 1094 views | Phil_S |
| The biggest problem on 18:07 - Sep 12 by thenorthbankbog |
Phil seeing as you've joined in can you answer the questions I have asked |
I can but can you do me a favour and ask again as trying to read on the phone and we all know how cr@p this site looks on a phone
Sorry thats not meant to be flippant or dismissive but between the layout and the signal on the train nothings easy |  | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:12 - Sep 12 with 1088 views | Mo_Wives |
| The biggest problem on 18:11 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
I can but can you do me a favour and ask again as trying to read on the phone and we all know how cr@p this site looks on a phone
Sorry thats not meant to be flippant or dismissive but between the layout and the signal on the train nothings easy |
How many sugars? |  |
| |
| The biggest problem on 18:14 - Sep 12 with 1081 views | Rancid |
| The biggest problem on 17:58 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
Keep going as I have no idea what you are talking about |
I wasn't going to mention the cheeseburgers but you've forced me to.
Seriously though, do you still talk to the sellouts or are you that disgusted with the way they conducted themselves that you refuse to be associated with them? |  | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:15 - Sep 12 with 1079 views | thenorthbankbog |
| The biggest problem on 17:50 - Sep 12 by thenorthbankbog |
Also why did they sell to these chancers and not someone who could take us to the next level.
If the trust is not one person why have individuals benefited from being on the trust board?
Why are the trust reluctant to hold Jenkins to task?
[Post edited 12 Sep 2017 17:53]
|
These ones |  | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:19 - Sep 12 with 1063 views | Phil_S |
| The biggest problem on 18:14 - Sep 12 by Rancid |
I wasn't going to mention the cheeseburgers but you've forced me to.
Seriously though, do you still talk to the sellouts or are you that disgusted with the way they conducted themselves that you refuse to be associated with them? |
I cant eat cheeseburgers :D
Depends what you mean by talking to them? Do I socialise with them or go drinking on a Friday/Saturday/whatever night? Nope but then again I don't recall ever doing that. Would I sit around a table and raise the issues that matter to the Trust, our members and our fans? Yes I would because that is what the job entails.
I also sit around the table with people in work who I wouldn't socialise with as well.
And I have only ever been to Morgans hotel once and one of those meetings was prior to us playing Chelsea on APril 9th 2016 | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:26 - Sep 12 with 1041 views | Phil_S |
OK, let me try my best and apologise for any spelling wrrors or Apple deciding at any stage I mean a different word to the one I tried to type
Also why did they sell to these chancers and not someone who could take us to the next level.
That unfortunately is something that only really the people who found and orchestrated the deal can answer. The public answers given is that the AMericans can safeguard facilities for the club that the previous shareholders could not do and that they have expertise in markets that werent there before which can increase revenues from other sources (commercial etc) I suspect people like xmastree will have an opinion on this.
If the trust is not one person why have individuals benefited from being on the trust board?
I assume here that you refer to the conflict of interest that arose with Huw Cooze (and one that was aimed at Jim White as well) - as the club grew things changed and we (Trust) should have changed with them, we didn't mistakes were made, rectified and safeguards in play to stop them happening again. THis is an evolving process and every year we learn more. The addition of people like Matt, Roger, Dave and Sian (recent additions to the Trust board) help this process and - contrary to popular belief - the more we get like this the better. I think Uxbridge mentioned our plans to bring more people into be involved so we get fresh ideas and involvement.
Should people benefit from being on the Trust board? No and I can speak for myself when I say that - outside of alot of earache, personal abuse and stress - I'm not sure I have gained anything.
Why are the trust reluctant to hold Jenkins to task?
What do you mean by take to task? Publically criticise him, demand his removal or raise issues where things have clearly not worked? | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:29 - Sep 12 with 1026 views | Darran |
| The biggest problem on 18:06 - Sep 12 by Rancid |
Did they really go behind the backs of the trust? We're told that they did but nothings changed and unbelievably the leader of the pack who supposedly went behind the Trusts back is now not only millions and millions of pound richer (fair enough) but has engineered an even more influential role for himself at the club.
If they chose not to consult the Trust over such a huge decision for the club then they clearly didnt/dont respect them and its senior members, so its time for a overall and to put in place someone they do.
We're forever championing the Trust and what they've done and they're our very own safety net or so we thought but somethings not quite right as they've been proved to be completely irrelevant. |
Well the Americans admitted it so yes I believe they did. |  |
| |
| The biggest problem on 18:34 - Sep 12 with 1008 views | Rancid |
| The biggest problem on 18:19 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
I cant eat cheeseburgers :D
Depends what you mean by talking to them? Do I socialise with them or go drinking on a Friday/Saturday/whatever night? Nope but then again I don't recall ever doing that. Would I sit around a table and raise the issues that matter to the Trust, our members and our fans? Yes I would because that is what the job entails.
I also sit around the table with people in work who I wouldn't socialise with as well.
And I have only ever been to Morgans hotel once and one of those meetings was prior to us playing Chelsea on APril 9th 2016 |
It must be killing Martin Morgan you dont frequent his hotel and it'll give him plenty of food for thought and many regrets even though you never went there anyway so not sure why you mentioned Morgans at all. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The biggest problem on 18:37 - Sep 12 with 993 views | Rancid |
| The biggest problem on 18:26 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
OK, let me try my best and apologise for any spelling wrrors or Apple deciding at any stage I mean a different word to the one I tried to type
Also why did they sell to these chancers and not someone who could take us to the next level.
That unfortunately is something that only really the people who found and orchestrated the deal can answer. The public answers given is that the AMericans can safeguard facilities for the club that the previous shareholders could not do and that they have expertise in markets that werent there before which can increase revenues from other sources (commercial etc) I suspect people like xmastree will have an opinion on this.
If the trust is not one person why have individuals benefited from being on the trust board?
I assume here that you refer to the conflict of interest that arose with Huw Cooze (and one that was aimed at Jim White as well) - as the club grew things changed and we (Trust) should have changed with them, we didn't mistakes were made, rectified and safeguards in play to stop them happening again. THis is an evolving process and every year we learn more. The addition of people like Matt, Roger, Dave and Sian (recent additions to the Trust board) help this process and - contrary to popular belief - the more we get like this the better. I think Uxbridge mentioned our plans to bring more people into be involved so we get fresh ideas and involvement.
Should people benefit from being on the Trust board? No and I can speak for myself when I say that - outside of alot of earache, personal abuse and stress - I'm not sure I have gained anything.
Why are the trust reluctant to hold Jenkins to task?
What do you mean by take to task? Publically criticise him, demand his removal or raise issues where things have clearly not worked? |
Have you publicly criticized Huw Jenkins, Phil?
Thanks for the detailed reply btw.Its the most you've said since the sale of the club. | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:37 - Sep 12 with 989 views | Phil_S |
| The biggest problem on 18:34 - Sep 12 by Rancid |
It must be killing Martin Morgan you dont frequent his hotel and it'll give him plenty of food for thought and many regrets even though you never went there anyway so not sure why you mentioned Morgans at all. |
Generally because thats one of the usual accusations about the Trust living the high life in Morgans so thought I would get in there before anyone else.
It seems reasonably clear that you are happy playing games so either make a public accusation and I can refute it quite simply or can I move on for the evening and get on with the important things in life? Again, not flippant or dismissive but clearly you think you have something that everyone should hear and proof of wrongdoing, I know for a fact that you dont | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:38 - Sep 12 with 986 views | whoflungdung |
So what s the way forward.
We seem to be regressing alright
It's the future that matters.
Too personal, too snide, too much
Typical of our narrow minded bitching | |
| |
| The biggest problem on 18:39 - Sep 12 with 977 views | Darran |
Rance are you suggesting Phils been on the hey diddle diddle? [Post edited 12 Sep 2017 18:42]
| |
| |
| The biggest problem on 18:40 - Sep 12 with 971 views | Phil_S |
| The biggest problem on 18:37 - Sep 12 by Rancid |
Have you publicly criticized Huw Jenkins, Phil?
Thanks for the detailed reply btw.Its the most you've said since the sale of the club. |
To the first question, yes I have, on many occasions
And to the second point, given I have given three public addresses and question and answer sessions that again isn't right and the first point was also in them too
I have no issues in answering questions although I do typically try and avoid them on forums such as these because - as I am sure you know - they become very time consuming and, at the risk of banging the same old drum, I don't have the level of time to spend hours on here.
But there are many people who I have conversed with publically and privately | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:41 - Sep 12 with 959 views | Rancid |
| The biggest problem on 18:37 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
Generally because thats one of the usual accusations about the Trust living the high life in Morgans so thought I would get in there before anyone else.
It seems reasonably clear that you are happy playing games so either make a public accusation and I can refute it quite simply or can I move on for the evening and get on with the important things in life? Again, not flippant or dismissive but clearly you think you have something that everyone should hear and proof of wrongdoing, I know for a fact that you dont |
I do apologize for taken up your valuable time.I'll let you go back now to looking after the best interests of the club. | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:41 - Sep 12 with 953 views | thenorthbankbog |
| The biggest problem on 18:26 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
OK, let me try my best and apologise for any spelling wrrors or Apple deciding at any stage I mean a different word to the one I tried to type
Also why did they sell to these chancers and not someone who could take us to the next level.
That unfortunately is something that only really the people who found and orchestrated the deal can answer. The public answers given is that the AMericans can safeguard facilities for the club that the previous shareholders could not do and that they have expertise in markets that werent there before which can increase revenues from other sources (commercial etc) I suspect people like xmastree will have an opinion on this.
If the trust is not one person why have individuals benefited from being on the trust board?
I assume here that you refer to the conflict of interest that arose with Huw Cooze (and one that was aimed at Jim White as well) - as the club grew things changed and we (Trust) should have changed with them, we didn't mistakes were made, rectified and safeguards in play to stop them happening again. THis is an evolving process and every year we learn more. The addition of people like Matt, Roger, Dave and Sian (recent additions to the Trust board) help this process and - contrary to popular belief - the more we get like this the better. I think Uxbridge mentioned our plans to bring more people into be involved so we get fresh ideas and involvement.
Should people benefit from being on the Trust board? No and I can speak for myself when I say that - outside of alot of earache, personal abuse and stress - I'm not sure I have gained anything.
Why are the trust reluctant to hold Jenkins to task?
What do you mean by take to task? Publically criticise him, demand his removal or raise issues where things have clearly not worked? |
Jenkins actions were illegal a breach of the shareholders agreement by conducting the sale of shares without informing all current shareholders.
Then one of bribery by writing to you asking for the shareholders agreement to be waivered in return for an extra member on the board. This action suggests Jenkins knew what he'd done was illegal.
Yet no action taken and he's still there sitting high and mighty playing his roll as dof trying to convince us that the club is in the best position it's been on and off the pitch since we've been in the premier league.
So I ask again why are the trust reluctant to take action against Jenkins? | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:43 - Sep 12 with 945 views | Phil_S |
| The biggest problem on 18:41 - Sep 12 by Rancid |
I do apologize for taken up your valuable time.I'll let you go back now to looking after the best interests of the club. |
Thanks very much although right now I am undertaking Q4 sales re-forecasts for work so actually its been a helpful distraction as they dont look good
Much like our midfield last SUnday | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:47 - Sep 12 with 925 views | Phil_S |
| The biggest problem on 18:41 - Sep 12 by thenorthbankbog |
Jenkins actions were illegal a breach of the shareholders agreement by conducting the sale of shares without informing all current shareholders.
Then one of bribery by writing to you asking for the shareholders agreement to be waivered in return for an extra member on the board. This action suggests Jenkins knew what he'd done was illegal.
Yet no action taken and he's still there sitting high and mighty playing his roll as dof trying to convince us that the club is in the best position it's been on and off the pitch since we've been in the premier league.
So I ask again why are the trust reluctant to take action against Jenkins? |
We were never asked to waive the shareholders agreement in return for a seat on the board. It is true though that we were asked to sign something to say that the initial shareholders agreement was invalid. We refused because at the time - and we still believe - that it was a valid document.
However, the advice that we have taken have suggested that the case is not strong on the shareholders agreement for a variety of reasons and therefore the recommendation given to us was that it was not one to pursue.
I can give personal viewpoints on the shareholders agreement and maybe had things been different in 2001 then it could be different now on that front. | | | |
| The biggest problem on 18:58 - Sep 12 with 896 views | Darran |
| The biggest problem on 18:43 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
Thanks very much although right now I am undertaking Q4 sales re-forecasts for work so actually its been a helpful distraction as they dont look good
Much like our midfield last SUnday |
Phil is there any truth in what I said here a few weeks ago?
The person I bumped into earlier down Liberty by Darran 22 Aug 2017 18:03They took my number because they had some business to get done down there before they left for Milton Keynes and they've just rung me.
He/She reckons that now that the Trust vote is over Huw Jenkins is going to have to buy shares off the Trust but Leigh Dineen isn't.
Apparently Mr Dineen (and another) was given more time to get his money together so he had not signed the initial Shareholders Agreement.
I suppose this is why only Jenkins wrote to the Trust asking them to rip it up.
Also a few years ago everyone had agreed to get a new Shareholders Agreement drafted but it hadn't happened.
Anyone know if this is correct? I'm only saying what I've been told and I don't think I'm being wound up but stranger things have happened.
| |
| |
| The biggest problem on 19:00 - Sep 12 with 884 views | thenorthbankbog |
| The biggest problem on 18:47 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
We were never asked to waive the shareholders agreement in return for a seat on the board. It is true though that we were asked to sign something to say that the initial shareholders agreement was invalid. We refused because at the time - and we still believe - that it was a valid document.
However, the advice that we have taken have suggested that the case is not strong on the shareholders agreement for a variety of reasons and therefore the recommendation given to us was that it was not one to pursue.
I can give personal viewpoints on the shareholders agreement and maybe had things been different in 2001 then it could be different now on that front. |
Invalid waiver same thing. You said in front of everyone at the meeting after news of the sale emerged you were offered another seat on the board in exchange for signing the sha invalid. The fact your now denying it raises alarm bells.
thanks for answering the questions but something still isn't right | | | |
| The biggest problem on 19:03 - Sep 12 with 869 views | Phil_S |
| The biggest problem on 18:58 - Sep 12 by Darran |
Phil is there any truth in what I said here a few weeks ago?
The person I bumped into earlier down Liberty by Darran 22 Aug 2017 18:03They took my number because they had some business to get done down there before they left for Milton Keynes and they've just rung me.
He/She reckons that now that the Trust vote is over Huw Jenkins is going to have to buy shares off the Trust but Leigh Dineen isn't.
Apparently Mr Dineen (and another) was given more time to get his money together so he had not signed the initial Shareholders Agreement.
I suppose this is why only Jenkins wrote to the Trust asking them to rip it up.
Also a few years ago everyone had agreed to get a new Shareholders Agreement drafted but it hadn't happened.
Anyone know if this is correct? I'm only saying what I've been told and I don't think I'm being wound up but stranger things have happened.
|
As part of the deal we outlined then yes Huw Jenkins will be contributing towards the sale of the Trust shares
Leigh Dineen signed the original shareholders agreement as the Trust representative at the time - from memory he became a shareholder in his own right around 2003 but I would need to check those dates
There was a discussion a few years back yes around a new shareholders agreement but whilst one was drafted the terms of it were never agreed by shareholders for a variety of reasons | | | |
| The biggest problem on 19:22 - Sep 12 with 821 views | Darran |
| The biggest problem on 19:03 - Sep 12 by Phil_S |
As part of the deal we outlined then yes Huw Jenkins will be contributing towards the sale of the Trust shares
Leigh Dineen signed the original shareholders agreement as the Trust representative at the time - from memory he became a shareholder in his own right around 2003 but I would need to check those dates
There was a discussion a few years back yes around a new shareholders agreement but whilst one was drafted the terms of it were never agreed by shareholders for a variety of reasons |
Thanks. | |
| |
| The biggest problem on 19:26 - Sep 12 with 811 views | Phil_S |
| The biggest problem on 19:00 - Sep 12 by thenorthbankbog |
Invalid waiver same thing. You said in front of everyone at the meeting after news of the sale emerged you were offered another seat on the board in exchange for signing the sha invalid. The fact your now denying it raises alarm bells.
thanks for answering the questions but something still isn't right |
Apologies, things happened so quick last year that I gave the wrong answer - have checked back and you are right although it was an observer at board meetings rather than a director (which we now have anyway)
We know something wasnt right in the sale and have documented what it was - however, where it went wrong was the decision by sellers and buyers not to include the Trust | | | |
| The biggest problem on 19:32 - Sep 12 with 800 views | Rancid |
| The biggest problem on 18:29 - Sep 12 by Darran |
Well the Americans admitted it so yes I believe they did. |
Ok they admitted it but it takes two to tango and what they admitted was themselves and the board both went behind the Trusts back in the sale, something I'm not convinced of.Anyway, It's easy to admit when you don't particularly care and at the same time shielding the real ratbags in all this.
Do you know what? If Huw had come out and said they're selling up to Americans who have no history or knowledge of football but will make himself and his cronies very rich in the process but went on and explained that it's for all their hard work and success the clubs had then in the long run i think fans would accept it.
Its the dirty underhanded manner it unfolded which has left such a bitter taste in everyones mouth. | | | |
| The biggest problem on 19:34 - Sep 12 with 782 views | LeonWasGod |
| The biggest problem on 11:08 - Sep 12 by Naughty71 |
The problem with wanting to get the fanbase to all "sing from the same hymn sheet" is the fact that you are correct in your assumption that there are some fair weather fans now.
I'm one of them.
I used to go to the odd match at the vetch, and the liberty when we first moved there. Once the chance of premier league football was in the offing, the day before the play off final against Reading, I bought a season ticket knowing full well they would be like rocking horse sh1t if we went up. And it has proved to be so. People want to see the best product they can, Prem football is it. We may not be pretty to watch, but watch people will.
3-4k in div 4 crowds.
5-7k in div 3 crowds.
8-12k in championship, growing to 14-15k once contention for the play-offs appeared
20k every week in the prem.
As the team progresses through the leagues, so you pick up "floating fans", this is not new. It will always be. If relegation came, yes, we would see attendances fall again, 'tis the nature of it. The vast majority of these floating fans will NEVER become a hard core fan base unfortunately, it just won't happen.
People pay to be entertained, £450 is good value for the Prem, not so much for the Championship and downright outrageous for leagues 1 and 2. But the club has to keep a certain level of revenue to facilitate the current set up. Relegation would seriously harm this model, may even see us go out of business. Not what I or any other fan wants.
I want to see my home town club playing against the likes of Spurs, Chelsea, Liverpool etc. and growing every year. This HAS happened even if some people refuse to see or admit it. The club is light years away from where it was when it entered the Premier League, and unrecognisable from the struggles 12 years ago at the bottom of League 4.
We can never go back. Either we accept where we are and what we have to do to maintain that position, or we continue to attempt to force out the very people who got us here and are trying to keep us here and face the prospect of disappearing never to return. |
Well said. Huw's still a sneaky b@stard though 
I got one of those £200 STs when they had the offer on in our promo season. Worked out nicely! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
Whatever makes you think that? Coffee is ok and we cant begrudge him that.He's vehemently denied the cheeseburgers though which makes me suspicious.