| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman 18:07 - Nov 14 with 45616 views | Darran |
Deserves its own thread.
|  |
| |  |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:16 - Nov 15 with 2412 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:09 - Nov 15 by SoberBaker |
This has just reminded me.
Whatever happened to Jackonicko that used to post on here? |
He moved away for work (Singapore I think). |  | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:19 - Nov 15 with 2394 views | Shaky |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:00 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Not really.
I'm just saying that we disagreed with many things but on the fundamental issue of this deal, as an example, we agreed. We also agreed as it happens on the issue over whether the old owners would attempt to sell the club. What, from memory, we did disagree on was whether the Trust should aim to get to 25% or not and also over the shareholders' agreement.
As an aside - the 'Shaky of the bailey' moniker was coined long before I started posting on here (this time round). Nothing to do with me. |
Just for the record "Shaky of the Baily/SOTB" was coined around the time I forcefully stated my opinion that the conviction of Ched Evans was unsafe.
For some reason the term appears to have fallen into disuse around the time I devised the Trust's legal strategy that one of the leading QCs in the filed of Unfair Prejudice apparently described as very strong. Odd that. [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 14:21]
|  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:20 - Nov 15 with 2393 views | trampie |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:16 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
He moved away for work (Singapore I think). |
There are a lot of economic migrants about, needs must and all that. [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 14:26]
|  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:24 - Nov 15 with 2375 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:19 - Nov 15 by Shaky |
Just for the record "Shaky of the Baily/SOTB" was coined around the time I forcefully stated my opinion that the conviction of Ched Evans was unsafe.
For some reason the term appears to have fallen into disuse around the time I devised the Trust's legal strategy that one of the leading QCs in the filed of Unfair Prejudice apparently described as very strong. Odd that. [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 14:21]
|
No, I don't think so.
That was one of the issues we argued over and the term was being used a long time prior to that as it was used when I joined the site.
As an aside - I'm not certain that the Trust have ever said exactly what legal strategy was going to be used Shaky. It's perfectly possible that the QC agreed with the quasi partnership angle ;-) | | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:26 - Nov 15 with 2367 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:20 - Nov 15 by trampie |
There are a lot of economic migrants about, needs must and all that. [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 14:26]
|
Jacko couldn't really be described as an economic migrant Trampie. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:27 - Nov 15 with 2360 views | trampie |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:26 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Jacko couldn't really be described as an economic migrant Trampie. |
 | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:28 - Nov 15 with 2358 views | Shaky |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:24 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
No, I don't think so.
That was one of the issues we argued over and the term was being used a long time prior to that as it was used when I joined the site.
As an aside - I'm not certain that the Trust have ever said exactly what legal strategy was going to be used Shaky. It's perfectly possible that the QC agreed with the quasi partnership angle ;-) |
Well we may never know the truth, but certainly the fact was one moment the Trust hadn't a leg to stand on, and the next they had a very strong case.
What changed was the publication of the legal strategy I came up with. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:34 - Nov 15 with 2324 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:28 - Nov 15 by Shaky |
Well we may never know the truth, but certainly the fact was one moment the Trust hadn't a leg to stand on, and the next they had a very strong case.
What changed was the publication of the legal strategy I came up with. |
And at the same time, the argument over quasi partnership...
What actually changed of course was that the Trust took QCs advice which had previously been unforthcoming. The Trust always had a strong case under the facts once the QC was in full possession of them. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:38 - Nov 15 with 2305 views | trampie |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:19 - Nov 15 by Shaky |
Just for the record "Shaky of the Baily/SOTB" was coined around the time I forcefully stated my opinion that the conviction of Ched Evans was unsafe.
For some reason the term appears to have fallen into disuse around the time I devised the Trust's legal strategy that one of the leading QCs in the filed of Unfair Prejudice apparently described as very strong. Odd that. [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 14:21]
|
I guardedly tried telling a few people about the Evans case they were ranting and raving and saying things and I was thinking to myself, have you seen the evidence, it's likely to be overturned.
Why people have so much trouble reading a case I don't know. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:39 - Nov 15 with 2304 views | ItchySphincter |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:00 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Not really.
I'm just saying that we disagreed with many things but on the fundamental issue of this deal, as an example, we agreed. We also agreed as it happens on the issue over whether the old owners would attempt to sell the club. What, from memory, we did disagree on was whether the Trust should aim to get to 25% or not and also over the shareholders' agreement.
As an aside - the 'Shaky of the bailey' moniker was coined long before I started posting on here (this time round). Nothing to do with me. |
My point was directed at the person who said the trust ignored advice form this forum and I'm saying how could they accept it based on not knowing who is for real and who is a cartoon character, surely you agree. I agreed with you and Shaky is it happens but there been plenty of occasions where we've been polarised, especially you and him. It was just an observation and the fact that it's made Tampie wet her knickers is just a bonus. |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:45 - Nov 15 with 2287 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:39 - Nov 15 by ItchySphincter |
My point was directed at the person who said the trust ignored advice form this forum and I'm saying how could they accept it based on not knowing who is for real and who is a cartoon character, surely you agree. I agreed with you and Shaky is it happens but there been plenty of occasions where we've been polarised, especially you and him. It was just an observation and the fact that it's made Tampie wet her knickers is just a bonus. |
Oh right.
Yes, I agree based solely on this forum.
But I also know for a fact that I made my views known off this board with detail and transparency. I believe that Shaky did the same thing.
I know that others did as well. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:52 - Nov 15 with 2262 views | ItchySphincter |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:45 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh right.
Yes, I agree based solely on this forum.
But I also know for a fact that I made my views known off this board with detail and transparency. I believe that Shaky did the same thing.
I know that others did as well. |
Not for me to nominate anyone but maybe the trust, like Andrew and Darran have both insinuated, could do worse than look in to some of the more validated posters that use this forum. I completely understand the principle of the recent resignations but it could well bring more problems than solutions, especially if exiting members have been gagged. It's terrifying to think who the faceless wonders left to protect the fans' interest in the club are, and what their actual objective is. [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 14:54]
| |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:56 - Nov 15 with 2251 views | DafyddHuw |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:52 - Nov 15 by ItchySphincter |
Not for me to nominate anyone but maybe the trust, like Andrew and Darran have both insinuated, could do worse than look in to some of the more validated posters that use this forum. I completely understand the principle of the recent resignations but it could well bring more problems than solutions, especially if exiting members have been gagged. It's terrifying to think who the faceless wonders left to protect the fans' interest in the club are, and what their actual objective is. [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 14:54]
|
But surely NGAs no longer apply to people who are no longer Trust board members?
If they are, how long do they last? A lifetime? |  | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 15:14 - Nov 15 with 2213 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:56 - Nov 15 by DafyddHuw |
But surely NGAs no longer apply to people who are no longer Trust board members?
If they are, how long do they last? A lifetime? |
Unless the NDA is badly worded, it lasts indefinitely. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 15:23 - Nov 15 with 2188 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 15:14 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
Unless the NDA is badly worded, it lasts indefinitely. |
Sorry but I need an idiots guide for this.
The Trust members voted on a specific agreement, that agreement is no longer in place, so anything extra needs to go back out to vote with members. Are you saying this is now illegal because they have signed an NDA?
Like someone said, the Trust is basically just a committee. |  | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 15:57 - Nov 15 with 2114 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 15:23 - Nov 15 by 34dfgdf54 |
Sorry but I need an idiots guide for this.
The Trust members voted on a specific agreement, that agreement is no longer in place, so anything extra needs to go back out to vote with members. Are you saying this is now illegal because they have signed an NDA?
Like someone said, the Trust is basically just a committee. |
No. Two different things.
The NDA will stop those members of the Trust that are party to detailed discussions, making those details public.
Whether the Trust accepts the deal or not is an entirely different matter. The Trust board, as I understand it, are actually legally entitled to sign the deal or not irrespective of the wishes of members. I believe that they went to a vote voluntarily. So if the current members of the Trust board want to sign a deal which gives them a packet of smarties in return for anything the Americans want, they can do so. I think that the only thing that is legally possible, is to remove the Trust board if members disagreed with the direction of travel,
This has been asked though in a different thread but I'm not sure it's been answered. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 16:21 - Nov 15 with 2041 views | SPboy |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 09:52 - Nov 15 by E20Jack |
I am talking about the Trust board not the Trust membership.
The Trust board were warned by many professionals regarding this deal. Continually. We had a chance to get enough money to break the chain of venture capitalist owners and become majority share holders again at so,e point in the future.
The legal council they spent thousands on also told them of the strength of the case. Not to mention their moral obligation to fight for the club and its supporters. They ignored it and decided to put a recommendation forward that the opposite be voted for in order to get into bed with people clearly showing contempt to both whose aims were not aligned with the Trust, thr club nor its fans.
That has now clearly and obviously backfired as all the above warned. And the individuals pushing through the deal have now in the main, changed their minds.
The remedy? Seems like its leaving it in the hands of the ones that still want to go ahead after the rest realised what an error they made.
I cant celebrate that. It is a catastrophic failure.
But your post goes to show (and The Trust know this) that any recommendation they make, will end up being the result of any vote - which was also noted at the time. This curent scenario is the doing of the Trust board (ones just resigned also). Thye have left it in one hell of a mess. [Post edited 15 Nov 2017 9:59]
|
I get exactly where you are coming from. All the legal representation will have done would be to lay out the probability of the options open to the Trust Board. The Trust Board including the individuals who resigned still recommended accepting the offer.
Something must clearly have changed since then, hence the spate of resignations. If something has changed then surely the mandate for acceptance is null & void. I recognise that this is what many on this board are saying.
The Supporters Director needs to issue a statement or a vote of no confidence raised from within against him. This whole scenario is playing right in to the hands of new owners & minority owners (the sell outs). Did someone say there is an extraordinary Trust Board meeting soon (tonight?). As usual the Trust Board are letting down the members with their appalling communication |  | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 16:57 - Nov 15 with 1957 views | MoscowJack |
Blaming those who pushed for the "sell" vote and now slagging them off doesn't make sense.
Let's say a friend said "you should buy this bike from the seller for £100" and you did. Great. Lovely.
When the seller later says "well, you can have the frame.....and one wheel.....and one pedal....and the saddle will come in about a year IF something completely out of your control doesn't change.....and the price has changed too!" then I'm sure your friend would say "fcuk it, walk away".
This is basically where we are now, but the NDA doesn't allow us the inside info into how much has changed (ie it could be a slight change in terms, or a HUGE change in terms) and we don't know who within the Trust Board is backing the new terms or not.
We need to know (a) exactly what's changed and, if it's big enough to worry us (THE FANS) then (b) we need to know who's backing the completion of such a deal.
Simple.........isn't it? | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 17:23 - Nov 15 with 1901 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 16:57 - Nov 15 by MoscowJack |
Blaming those who pushed for the "sell" vote and now slagging them off doesn't make sense.
Let's say a friend said "you should buy this bike from the seller for £100" and you did. Great. Lovely.
When the seller later says "well, you can have the frame.....and one wheel.....and one pedal....and the saddle will come in about a year IF something completely out of your control doesn't change.....and the price has changed too!" then I'm sure your friend would say "fcuk it, walk away".
This is basically where we are now, but the NDA doesn't allow us the inside info into how much has changed (ie it could be a slight change in terms, or a HUGE change in terms) and we don't know who within the Trust Board is backing the new terms or not.
We need to know (a) exactly what's changed and, if it's big enough to worry us (THE FANS) then (b) we need to know who's backing the completion of such a deal.
Simple.........isn't it? |
Sorry but I disagree.
The Trust are not buying something then walking away. Or selling something and walking away.
They are selling a part of something and remaining in a working relationship with those they are selling to. If you can't trust them, there is no meaningful working relationship anymore, however slight the change. And a big part of the discussion which led to the decision was the importance of a meaningful working relationship. It was mentioned specifically as a reason to accept the deal.
So the terms have changed irrevocably, already. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:21 - Nov 15 with 1756 views | longlostjack |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 15:57 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
No. Two different things.
The NDA will stop those members of the Trust that are party to detailed discussions, making those details public.
Whether the Trust accepts the deal or not is an entirely different matter. The Trust board, as I understand it, are actually legally entitled to sign the deal or not irrespective of the wishes of members. I believe that they went to a vote voluntarily. So if the current members of the Trust board want to sign a deal which gives them a packet of smarties in return for anything the Americans want, they can do so. I think that the only thing that is legally possible, is to remove the Trust board if members disagreed with the direction of travel,
This has been asked though in a different thread but I'm not sure it's been answered. |
Lisa, you say that the only thing that is legally possible is to remove the Trust Board but how can you do that if you're not a member? |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:28 - Nov 15 with 1744 views | Shaky |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 14:34 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
And at the same time, the argument over quasi partnership...
What actually changed of course was that the Trust took QCs advice which had previously been unforthcoming. The Trust always had a strong case under the facts once the QC was in full possession of them. |
You were talking about quasi-partnerships last year, Lisa.
And for the record when the QC looked at the Trust's case last year the opinion was they had nothing.
This spring they paid another QC 5 grand to look at the case Little put forward, BUT that amount doesn't buy you anything resembling a legal strategy.
instead the new ingredient with >95% confidence was what I came up with, after the Trust acquiesced to my demand that they should disclose legal fees before I gave anything away. Just for the record. | |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:37 - Nov 15 with 1705 views | Flashberryjack |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:21 - Nov 15 by longlostjack |
Lisa, you say that the only thing that is legally possible is to remove the Trust Board but how can you do that if you're not a member? |
I was thinking the same as you....the very reason why I rejoined. |  |
| |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:37 - Nov 15 with 1705 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:28 - Nov 15 by Shaky |
You were talking about quasi-partnerships last year, Lisa.
And for the record when the QC looked at the Trust's case last year the opinion was they had nothing.
This spring they paid another QC 5 grand to look at the case Little put forward, BUT that amount doesn't buy you anything resembling a legal strategy.
instead the new ingredient with >95% confidence was what I came up with, after the Trust acquiesced to my demand that they should disclose legal fees before I gave anything away. Just for the record. |
Last year's opinion was not that they had nothing. It was a request for more information before an opinion could be given, information that was then provided - an opinion then followed.
Shaky - I don't care what strategy would or wouldn't be used. I only care if (a) it is used because legal action has been launched and (b) whether it is successful.
But that's what happened. For the record.
The reality as I said at the time, is that a QC specialising in unfair prejudice does not require people suggesting strategies to them over the Internet. | | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:39 - Nov 15 with 1691 views | Phil_S |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 15:57 - Nov 15 by londonlisa2001 |
No. Two different things.
The NDA will stop those members of the Trust that are party to detailed discussions, making those details public.
Whether the Trust accepts the deal or not is an entirely different matter. The Trust board, as I understand it, are actually legally entitled to sign the deal or not irrespective of the wishes of members. I believe that they went to a vote voluntarily. So if the current members of the Trust board want to sign a deal which gives them a packet of smarties in return for anything the Americans want, they can do so. I think that the only thing that is legally possible, is to remove the Trust board if members disagreed with the direction of travel,
This has been asked though in a different thread but I'm not sure it's been answered. |
I've got a client meeting tonight so not on here for much but let me say on the NDA, that there was one put in place with several parties of the Trust who were involved and tasked with taking the vote to accept through to completion. Clearly I was one of those, I have asked the question as to whether that NDA covers me as an individual or whether it covers me as a representative of the Swans Trust.
I think the Trust reasons for the recommendation were made clear at the time. They were views that were supported and echoed by the QC that stated there was a strong legal case. He believed that it was the best way forward and indeed it may still be. There is nothing that says that legal action may not still be an option and it was stated last night by I think both statements that any change in the terms would require a member consultation (with a subsequent vote) I think my statement was clear in that I believed the change in terms meant the relationship had broken down and I think you can draw your own conclusions as to what I wanted to happen next. The Trust statement said that they wanted to continue to negotiate. The key here is that they cannot proceed on different (worse) terms without reversion as that was agreed before my departure. However, they do have a mandate if they wish to use it to get the deal as it was presented through.
QC advice was always that as a Trust board the power was there to make the first decision without a member consultation. In fact he was actively encouraging it and certainly always said that we should make the recommendation which we did.
It's been interesting times but having tried everything (I believe) everything to try and forge a working relationship (whether you agree or not the position the Trust was put in my the sellers we had no choice) but I'm not sure it will ever get there. And if the legal button was pressed now then the continued desire to reach an amicable agreement I am sure would be looked upon favourably.
In terms of advice posted on here, I believe (and I am sure they will correct me if I am wrong) Dai met with both Lisa and nookiejack at some stage during the process and I think Jim (in his time) reached out to others. But expert advice has to be backed up with credentials, can you imagine had we acted (and I forget the phrase earlier so apologise) but off the back off a comment on the internet. Especially as we had three different views from experts as to what the right outcome should be. Sometimes advice can be nothing more than an informed opinion.
To those that have offered messages in the past 24 hours, I thank you all, slightly overwhelmed by the people I have heard from and I promise everyone on here that it is always easier on the outside looking in. I know that much and I've only been here since Sunday :)
I will let you know the NDA answer when I get it and I suspect that at some point in the next day or so you will find out who my successor is. My shoes are Size eleven |  | | |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:41 - Nov 15 with 1681 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Phil Sumbler Resigns as Trust Chairman on 18:21 - Nov 15 by longlostjack |
Lisa, you say that the only thing that is legally possible is to remove the Trust Board but how can you do that if you're not a member? |
I said I think it is but someone had asked on another thread. I don't think there's been a response.
But the suggestion is that a petition of 10% of Trust members can call for a vote of no confidence.
On your last question - you can't. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
