FAO Will 21:18 - Nov 19 with 19523 views | Neath_Jack | As your role as associate director, did you used to attend the directors box at home games? I'm not talking about your role as Trust observer now, as i believe these are two completely different roles? | |
| | |
FAO Will on 19:43 - Nov 21 with 1271 views | londonlisa2001 |
FAO Will on 13:44 - Nov 21 by Shaky | I am just going to say one more thing about this then I will shut up. On reflection the absence of a filing on the new articles doesn't alter my opinion one bit, based on the facts as we know them. The resolution passed at the 2015 Trust AGM lawfully agreed to bin the 12 term limit imposed under the original rules, in accordance with all applicable law and custom. Like it or not it was agreed. The FCA then for unknown reasons rejected the new rules in their entirety. However, in so doing they are - as far as I can see - guilty of fundamental overreach by dismissing all element of the new bylaws, rather than only those they specifically objected to. This appears to contravene the fundamental doctrine of severability, and as I explained that seems to me to be unlawful and highly unlikely to be upheld were this to go to court. That said I am in complete agreement that there should be a term limit and why not 12 years. However, for me the right way to put this to bed is with due respect for the law; table a resolution at the forthcoming AGM (no board member shall ever serve for more than 12 years) and then this is done in a transparent and permanent way in accordance with all applicable law. Otherwise it is just a mob rule. Things already seem to be headed well in that direction, and I want no part of that. And BTW IF the Trust board survive into January, they will almost certainly also seek to have new rules confirmed once again, so gearing up for that proxy fight makes perfect sense anyway. |
The relevant bit of the Supporters Direct website states: "Supporters’ Trusts are typically constituted as Community Benefit Societies (CBS), a form of Co-operative that operates under a one-member one-vote principle. CBS’ are registered with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and any changes to the rules must be approved by the members and only become effective once the FCA has agreed them, checking they are in keeping with the spirit of the organisation." You'll note the 'only become effective once the FCA has agreed them' bit. Pretty straightforward language and the wording used at the AGM appears in complete agreement. | | | |
FAO Will on 19:47 - Nov 21 with 1263 views | exiledclaseboy | I think “mob rule” is hyperbole in the extreme. Surely all anyone wants to establish is whether the new Trust chairman is eligible to even sit on the board avvordung to the rules, let alone chair it. Same goes for any other current board members who may have overstayed the mandated 12 year term limit. The longer the current silence lasts, the more obvious the answer seems. | |
| |
FAO Will on 19:54 - Nov 21 with 1249 views | londonlisa2001 |
FAO Will on 19:47 - Nov 21 by exiledclaseboy | I think “mob rule” is hyperbole in the extreme. Surely all anyone wants to establish is whether the new Trust chairman is eligible to even sit on the board avvordung to the rules, let alone chair it. Same goes for any other current board members who may have overstayed the mandated 12 year term limit. The longer the current silence lasts, the more obvious the answer seems. |
I'm becoming increasingly confused by Nookie's position. He spent weeks arguing to take legal action and not the deal, and now is describing those Trust board members who, by their own admission, are trying to push the deal through despite changes as the 'good guys' over those Trust board members that have stated they have changed their minds due to the actions of the owners and wish to take action. It's odd. | | | |
FAO Will on 19:56 - Nov 21 with 1239 views | londonlisa2001 |
Presumably because the 2014 model rules were not accepted by the FCA and, therefore, do not exist. Hence their advice for the Trust to adopt the next lot out (2016 rules) instead. | | | |
FAO Will on 20:09 - Nov 21 with 1209 views | exiledclaseboy |
FAO Will on 22:32 - Nov 20 by Nookiejack | Perhaps ECB can confirm where in the Trust Board minutes the Board voted in favour of the recommendation to accept the Yank's offer? https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-board-and-agm-minutes/ Who argued the case for it? Who voted for it? Was it a 12-0 and 8-0 in favour of the deal? As Lisa mentioned below were there a minimum of 12 members there? 8 of whom ever elected and were they all able to serve under the rules at the time of the vote? |
Just seen this. Why would I be able to confirm that? | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:11 - Nov 21 with 1201 views | londonlisa2001 |
FAO Will on 20:09 - Nov 21 by exiledclaseboy | Just seen this. Why would I be able to confirm that? |
Did you move from Clase to Uxbridge? | | | |
FAO Will on 20:12 - Nov 21 with 1194 views | exiledclaseboy |
FAO Will on 20:11 - Nov 21 by londonlisa2001 | Did you move from Clase to Uxbridge? |
Penllergaer via Fforestfach. So no. | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
FAO Will on 20:12 - Nov 21 with 1191 views | MoscowJack | Another thing that's confusing me is that I have been told by a couple of very reliable people that the club never mentioned an actual sum of money when discussing a deal to buy the Trust's shares. They said something along the lines of "same as the previous Board got" but I don't think an exact sum was mentioned. I also understand that the Trust presumed it was £1m per 1% instead of the circa £850k per 1% that the old Board got. The old Board had add-ons for future PL status too, but that's future money, not money in the bank. This means that the deal that was offered hasn't changed, but that the Trust just misunderstood what the original offer was.....and only found out after it had gone to the vote. I honestly can't believe that this is true, but it's what I've been told. Please don't shoot the messenger....as I said, I am not sure whether I believe it either as it would be horrendous if true. | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:17 - Nov 21 with 1154 views | londonlisa2001 |
FAO Will on 20:12 - Nov 21 by exiledclaseboy | Penllergaer via Fforestfach. So no. |
I'm laughing at the thought of Boris Johnson being the MP for Penllergaer. But honestly, you and Uxbridge are as one. | | | |
FAO Will on 20:19 - Nov 21 with 1133 views | exiledclaseboy |
FAO Will on 20:17 - Nov 21 by londonlisa2001 | I'm laughing at the thought of Boris Johnson being the MP for Penllergaer. But honestly, you and Uxbridge are as one. |
I’m sure he’ll be delighted with that bless him. He’s likely appalled by this mess. | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:21 - Nov 21 with 1124 views | Nookiejack |
FAO Will on 19:54 - Nov 21 by londonlisa2001 | I'm becoming increasingly confused by Nookie's position. He spent weeks arguing to take legal action and not the deal, and now is describing those Trust board members who, by their own admission, are trying to push the deal through despite changes as the 'good guys' over those Trust board members that have stated they have changed their minds due to the actions of the owners and wish to take action. It's odd. |
There have been posts by posters who have had traditional connections to the selling shareholders in favour of Will being removed. You then have the articles in the Football club being changed (not the Holding Company), I haven’t got any inside information in respect of who has done what. What the Yanks have actually offered? So we could have egg on our faces if later find out that the Selling Shareholders have put up a smokescreen and find that Will and the remaining Board members were actually the good guys. I think that is what Shaky is referring to about mob rule. Although Shaky has never actually stated what he stands for. I am for Trust ownership of the club so my posts should always be seen in that light. I therefore want the minimum £21m value of the Trust’s Holding to be protected. I think the best way is through sale of the shares on the same terms that the shareholders received. The best way to do this is seems to be through legal action but I haven’t got any other inside information, on what has been offered or not. I have also argued over the last few years for minimum 3 year terms on the Trust Board so I am fully supportive of the position that Trust Board members have to step down if have breached the 12 year rule. I just become wary that all this information about Will is released all at once especially from posters who have traditionally had connections with the selling shareholders. What is their intention why do they want Will out? If he was so ineffectual and a politician type character who doesn’t ever get things done as claimed - if he and Nigel Hamer were connected to the Yanks - then wouldn’t is suit them to leave Will in office - rather than stir things up? So my views haven’t changed just very wary and very difficult to trust anyone. | | | |
FAO Will on 20:24 - Nov 21 with 1115 views | MoscowJack | I think you'll find that most of the information being put forward about Will is because he's just replaced Phil as Trust Chairman. I'm not sure if I'd ever heard of him before last week and I'm certainly not in cahoots with anyone, if that's what you're suggesting. | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:34 - Nov 21 with 1070 views | TheResurrection |
FAO Will on 20:21 - Nov 21 by Nookiejack | There have been posts by posters who have had traditional connections to the selling shareholders in favour of Will being removed. You then have the articles in the Football club being changed (not the Holding Company), I haven’t got any inside information in respect of who has done what. What the Yanks have actually offered? So we could have egg on our faces if later find out that the Selling Shareholders have put up a smokescreen and find that Will and the remaining Board members were actually the good guys. I think that is what Shaky is referring to about mob rule. Although Shaky has never actually stated what he stands for. I am for Trust ownership of the club so my posts should always be seen in that light. I therefore want the minimum £21m value of the Trust’s Holding to be protected. I think the best way is through sale of the shares on the same terms that the shareholders received. The best way to do this is seems to be through legal action but I haven’t got any other inside information, on what has been offered or not. I have also argued over the last few years for minimum 3 year terms on the Trust Board so I am fully supportive of the position that Trust Board members have to step down if have breached the 12 year rule. I just become wary that all this information about Will is released all at once especially from posters who have traditionally had connections with the selling shareholders. What is their intention why do they want Will out? If he was so ineffectual and a politician type character who doesn’t ever get things done as claimed - if he and Nigel Hamer were connected to the Yanks - then wouldn’t is suit them to leave Will in office - rather than stir things up? So my views haven’t changed just very wary and very difficult to trust anyone. |
Who are the posters you are talking about who have been traditionally close to the selling shareholders? | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:35 - Nov 21 with 1065 views | TheResurrection |
FAO Will on 19:43 - Nov 21 by londonlisa2001 | The relevant bit of the Supporters Direct website states: "Supporters’ Trusts are typically constituted as Community Benefit Societies (CBS), a form of Co-operative that operates under a one-member one-vote principle. CBS’ are registered with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and any changes to the rules must be approved by the members and only become effective once the FCA has agreed them, checking they are in keeping with the spirit of the organisation." You'll note the 'only become effective once the FCA has agreed them' bit. Pretty straightforward language and the wording used at the AGM appears in complete agreement. |
Good. Well let's hope that is Shaky's last comment on this. | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:42 - Nov 21 with 1016 views | Neath_Jack |
FAO Will on 20:34 - Nov 21 by TheResurrection | Who are the posters you are talking about who have been traditionally close to the selling shareholders? |
I'd guess Nick? | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:43 - Nov 21 with 1010 views | Neath_Jack |
FAO Will on 19:54 - Nov 21 by londonlisa2001 | I'm becoming increasingly confused by Nookie's position. He spent weeks arguing to take legal action and not the deal, and now is describing those Trust board members who, by their own admission, are trying to push the deal through despite changes as the 'good guys' over those Trust board members that have stated they have changed their minds due to the actions of the owners and wish to take action. It's odd. |
I'm the same, but with Shakes. It's all getting a bit mental on here. | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:44 - Nov 21 with 1005 views | TheResurrection |
FAO Will on 20:42 - Nov 21 by Neath_Jack | I'd guess Nick? |
So he's being a little exaggerated with the plural... | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:44 - Nov 21 with 1004 views | Vetchfielder |
FAO Will on 19:56 - Nov 21 by londonlisa2001 | Presumably because the 2014 model rules were not accepted by the FCA and, therefore, do not exist. Hence their advice for the Trust to adopt the next lot out (2016 rules) instead. |
OK , thanks Lisa. So have you seen the 2016 version and is that available for review ? I couldn't see that on the Supporters Direct website either, unless that hasn't been approved by the FCA either? | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
FAO Will on 20:49 - Nov 21 with 966 views | Nookiejack |
FAO Will on 20:34 - Nov 21 by TheResurrection | Who are the posters you are talking about who have been traditionally close to the selling shareholders? |
I recall a thread where Moscow was challenged about going on holiday with MM. If that is true then you would assume he had a connection with a Selling shareholder. (Maybe that is a historic connection). I am sure Moscow has a wide range of connections however I am wary of this connection. If the information he has claimed has been provided by that particular connection. | | | |
FAO Will on 20:50 - Nov 21 with 952 views | londonlisa2001 |
FAO Will on 20:35 - Nov 21 by TheResurrection | Good. Well let's hope that is Shaky's last comment on this. |
You may be surprised by this, but I actually think it's useful to get the counter positions as it gives a chance to see whether there are valid arguments and whether they can be properly refuted. | | | |
FAO Will on 20:51 - Nov 21 with 947 views | MoscowJack |
FAO Will on 20:42 - Nov 21 by Neath_Jack | I'd guess Nick? |
Well, he would really be barking up the wrong tree and I would hate to think that an accusation like this would detract from a really important debate. I would much prefer him to contact me directly rather than derail these threads with a wrong presumption. If he's not comfortable after that, he's always got the chance to come back on here to continue expressing his thoughts. | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:52 - Nov 21 with 943 views | Neath_Jack | It's like The Night (week) of The Long Knives | |
| |
FAO Will on 20:55 - Nov 21 with 922 views | Garyjack |
FAO Will on 20:49 - Nov 21 by Nookiejack | I recall a thread where Moscow was challenged about going on holiday with MM. If that is true then you would assume he had a connection with a Selling shareholder. (Maybe that is a historic connection). I am sure Moscow has a wide range of connections however I am wary of this connection. If the information he has claimed has been provided by that particular connection. |
Nookie, there are no good guys and bad guys. Not on here or the trust board. I think you're confusing good and bad with right and wrong. | | | |
FAO Will on 20:56 - Nov 21 with 908 views | londonlisa2001 |
FAO Will on 20:44 - Nov 21 by Vetchfielder | OK , thanks Lisa. So have you seen the 2016 version and is that available for review ? I couldn't see that on the Supporters Direct website either, unless that hasn't been approved by the FCA either? |
I haven't, no. I assume it's not done as yet. The delay on these things is always mad. i assume that the FCA's objections will have been worked into the new rules so they should get those approved. But they will be adopted at a later AGM of the Trust. The Trust could have adopted the 2012 rules of course, but didn't. | | | |
| |