| Update from trust 12:14 - Nov 24 with 5497 views | pencoedjack |
News from the Trust
Update on the Share Sale Discussions
Recent resignations from the Swans Trust Board have raised understandable concerns amongst members around the progress of the deal we are conducting with the majority shareholders about the proposed sale of some of our shares. In our email to members of 14 November, which included reference to Phil Sumbler's resignation, we stated that discussions on the detail of the deal were ongoing. These ongoing discussions have always been with the aim of completing the deal on the basis that we presented it to members.
We are pleased to say that there have been positive discussions between the two parties in this regard, particularly around some of the areas that were concerning us at the time of our 14 November statement. At this time, it is the view of the Trust board that the deal is on track to being concluded in the coming weeks exactly in line with the details provided during the members' consultation in July.
There is still work to be done in finalising some of the detailed clauses inevitably associated with such a deal, but we believe we are coming to a point where matters will be finalised quickly and we can then provide members with a full update. A Members' Forum to discuss all aspects of the Trust is also planned for December. We can only ask for your continued patience at this point.
The commitment has always been and remains, that if we are unable to secure agreement on the basis outlined in the members’ consultation, then we will refer back to our membership.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team
Swans Trust Board
There have been some questions raised about the clause in the Trust's Rules prohibiting a Trust board member from serving for more than 12 years. The Trust's Rules are based on the Model Rules provided by Supporters Direct (SD) the body that oversees the work of Supporter Trusts. These Model Rules are regularly reviewed and updated by SD and the 12 year rule was omitted from updates some years ago in recognition of the difficulty Trusts were having in recruiting new members to serve on Trust Boards.
To complete the governance review from last year it is planned to propose the adoption of the latest SD Model Rules at the forthcoming Swans Trust AGM, to be held in January. SD has confirmed that any Trust board members affected should remain in place until then.
[Post edited 24 Nov 2017 12:14]
|  | | |  |
| Update from trust on 12:36 - Nov 24 with 2390 views | 3swan |
"To complete the governance review from last year it is planned to propose the adoption of the latest SD Model Rules at the forthcoming Swans Trust AGM, to be held in January. SD has confirmed that any Trust board members affected should remain in place until then."
For clarification, do the latest SD Model Rules to be adopted have a 12 year or any other time span rule? |  | | |
| Update from trust on 12:49 - Nov 24 with 2339 views | monmouth |
So we're pushing ahead having now 'negotiated' that to do what they offered, and despite the fact we are now far more likely to be relegated then? Splendid. Well done chaps. They definitely won't find a way to screw you after you've signed. Definitely not. No way. |  |
| |
| Update from trust on 14:59 - Nov 24 with 2118 views | waynekerr55 |
| Update from trust on 12:49 - Nov 24 by monmouth |
So we're pushing ahead having now 'negotiated' that to do what they offered, and despite the fact we are now far more likely to be relegated then? Splendid. Well done chaps. They definitely won't find a way to screw you after you've signed. Definitely not. No way. |
Why on earth did pr*ck mart6 down arrow that post? The massive Jenkins cocksucker that he is... |  |
| |
| Update from trust on 15:16 - Nov 24 with 2079 views | Batterseajack |
| Update from trust on 14:59 - Nov 24 by waynekerr55 |
Why on earth did pr*ck mart6 down arrow that post? The massive Jenkins cocksucker that he is... |
My latest theory is that Mart6 is in fact Martin Morgan. Think about it, the number 6 is the exact same letters as "Morgan" and he's a fan of HJ and maintaining the status quo. | | | |
| Update from trust on 15:31 - Nov 24 with 2017 views | Vetchfielder |
The good news is that they are planning a Members' Forum but for some reason I'm still not getting enough positivity from their words around the share purchase to tell me this is going to happen as they want it; there could be lot more action around this.
It would also be good if they could pop these proposed "new rules" on to the website so that we can all review them a long time ahead of the AGM. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Update from trust on 15:34 - Nov 24 with 2007 views | monmouth |
| Update from trust on 15:16 - Nov 24 by Batterseajack |
My latest theory is that Mart6 is in fact Martin Morgan. Think about it, the number 6 is the exact same letters as "Morgan" and he's a fan of HJ and maintaining the status quo. |
Mart's alright. Seems to be a big fan of the Trust as is, which is fair enough. Free country. Wish he'd put his case in something other than arrow based argument. | |
| |
| Update from trust on 16:14 - Nov 24 with 1922 views | Highjack |
Basic translation: "we're carrying on regardless in the same vein as before and there's nothing you can do about it, there will be a further update in due course". |  |
| |
| Update from trust on 16:34 - Nov 24 with 1864 views | monmouth |
| Update from trust on 16:14 - Nov 24 by Highjack |
Basic translation: "we're carrying on regardless in the same vein as before and there's nothing you can do about it, there will be a further update in due course". |
They are finished when they do that deal, but there we go.
When we needed it most, it failed.
[Post edited 24 Nov 2017 16:39]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Update from trust on 16:42 - Nov 24 with 1830 views | E20Jack |
Can someone on the Trust board who is still pursuing this deal please explain the following:-
1) If the reason for taking the awful deal was in order to have a working relationship with the Americans - then their attitude towards this deal negates that, why are you still pursuing it when trust will be a cornerstone of this relationship?
2) if the deal was accepted for financial reasons and the potential future payments, then due to now being in a position where this would look unlikely and the drag rights will be in force, why on earth would this be in any way favourable to the organisation? [Post edited 24 Nov 2017 17:30]
|  |
| |
| Update from trust on 16:44 - Nov 24 with 1822 views | londonlisa2001 |
If I've read that right, in summary:
- people are kicking up a fuss, so the Americans have stopped buggering about for a minute at least and we're going to ignore the very reasonable questions about whether the loss of good faith was a change to a fundamental part of the original recommendation. In fact, we're going to pretend those questions have not been asked, because they're a bit difficult, even though outgoing board members have cited that issue as a reason for them leaving.
- our Trust rules are based on rules that have changed, so even though our rules have not changed, we're going to pretend they have because otherwise it's a bit inconvenient.
Terrific. Lessons learned all over the place there. £10 back in pocket again. | | | |
| Update from trust on 16:45 - Nov 24 with 1813 views | E20Jack |
| Update from trust on 16:14 - Nov 24 by Highjack |
Basic translation: "we're carrying on regardless in the same vein as before and there's nothing you can do about it, there will be a further update in due course". |
''we put a lot of work in manipulating the members, we are not going to let that slip away now regardless of the fact it now looks 100 times worse than it did before - due to our likely relegation.
Many thanks''. | |
| |
| Update from trust on 16:49 - Nov 24 with 1786 views | longlostjack |
Pathetic, simply pathetic. |  |
| |
| Update from trust on 16:52 - Nov 24 with 1776 views | MoscowJack |
| Update from trust on 16:44 - Nov 24 by londonlisa2001 |
If I've read that right, in summary:
- people are kicking up a fuss, so the Americans have stopped buggering about for a minute at least and we're going to ignore the very reasonable questions about whether the loss of good faith was a change to a fundamental part of the original recommendation. In fact, we're going to pretend those questions have not been asked, because they're a bit difficult, even though outgoing board members have cited that issue as a reason for them leaving.
- our Trust rules are based on rules that have changed, so even though our rules have not changed, we're going to pretend they have because otherwise it's a bit inconvenient.
Terrific. Lessons learned all over the place there. £10 back in pocket again. |
In a way, has the "fuss" caused by Phil's resignation forced the Americans to re-think their approach ans backtrack on their alleged changes? | |
| |
| Update from trust on 16:53 - Nov 24 with 1769 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Update from trust on 16:52 - Nov 24 by MoscowJack |
In a way, has the "fuss" caused by Phil's resignation forced the Americans to re-think their approach ans backtrack on their alleged changes? |
It's quite possible I would think. | | | |
| Update from trust on 16:56 - Nov 24 with 1754 views | E20Jack |
| Update from trust on 16:52 - Nov 24 by MoscowJack |
In a way, has the "fuss" caused by Phil's resignation forced the Americans to re-think their approach ans backtrack on their alleged changes? |
It has probably made them realise that if they don't get the deal done now which is so heavily in their favour it is untrue, then they may miss the opportunity to completely rinse us.
Needless to say they have come to their senses and are allowing the current (and former) board to lead us into complete oblivion and end the chance of us ever being able to protect the club again.
But hey, we will have a few crumbs that will probably eventually be given away to local charities. Yey for us. [Post edited 24 Nov 2017 16:58]
| |
| |
| Update from trust on 16:56 - Nov 24 with 1746 views | monmouth |
| Update from trust on 16:44 - Nov 24 by londonlisa2001 |
If I've read that right, in summary:
- people are kicking up a fuss, so the Americans have stopped buggering about for a minute at least and we're going to ignore the very reasonable questions about whether the loss of good faith was a change to a fundamental part of the original recommendation. In fact, we're going to pretend those questions have not been asked, because they're a bit difficult, even though outgoing board members have cited that issue as a reason for them leaving.
- our Trust rules are based on rules that have changed, so even though our rules have not changed, we're going to pretend they have because otherwise it's a bit inconvenient.
Terrific. Lessons learned all over the place there. £10 back in pocket again. |
Thanks Lisa
That's along the lines I'd started writing in my post above, and then thought f**k it, the whole thing is rotten, a farce and unsalvageable with anyone still there that thinks this is all ok. So just leave it.
But I'm glad you still had the energy to write it all more eloquently than my aborted attempt. | |
| |
| Update from trust on 17:00 - Nov 24 with 1723 views | 3swan |
| Update from trust on 16:56 - Nov 24 by E20Jack |
It has probably made them realise that if they don't get the deal done now which is so heavily in their favour it is untrue, then they may miss the opportunity to completely rinse us.
Needless to say they have come to their senses and are allowing the current (and former) board to lead us into complete oblivion and end the chance of us ever being able to protect the club again.
But hey, we will have a few crumbs that will probably eventually be given away to local charities. Yey for us. [Post edited 24 Nov 2017 16:58]
|
What’s to say that wasn’t the intention in the first place?
Use the opportunity to cause further turmoil within the Trust and then complete the original deal. | | | |
| Update from trust on 17:02 - Nov 24 with 1694 views | E20Jack |
| Update from trust on 17:00 - Nov 24 by 3swan |
What’s to say that wasn’t the intention in the first place?
Use the opportunity to cause further turmoil within the Trust and then complete the original deal. |
Because there is no need to do that. The Trust is powerless the second it signs the deal regardless of inner turmoil. It was a last second chancing their arm to get an even better deal for themselves such is their disdain for those they are negotiating with - there was a chance it would backfire so they have come back offering their apologies no doubt. | |
| |
| Update from trust on 17:04 - Nov 24 with 1679 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Update from trust on 16:56 - Nov 24 by monmouth |
Thanks Lisa
That's along the lines I'd started writing in my post above, and then thought f**k it, the whole thing is rotten, a farce and unsalvageable with anyone still there that thinks this is all ok. So just leave it.
But I'm glad you still had the energy to write it all more eloquently than my aborted attempt. |
I'm bizarrely glad that they have issued this today. Because despite me genuinely having zero time to get involved, I've been feeling really guilty about not doing so.
This has clarified my thoughts no end. | | | |
| Update from trust on 17:07 - Nov 24 with 1658 views | 3swan |
| Update from trust on 17:02 - Nov 24 by E20Jack |
Because there is no need to do that. The Trust is powerless the second it signs the deal regardless of inner turmoil. It was a last second chancing their arm to get an even better deal for themselves such is their disdain for those they are negotiating with - there was a chance it would backfire so they have come back offering their apologies no doubt. |
If they already hold the Trust in contempt I can;t see the issue of resignations forcing a change in stance.
Yes they were chancing it but always had the fall back position of the original agreed terms
I'm sure they have negotiated enough over their business career to know how far to push. | | | |
| Update from trust on 17:12 - Nov 24 with 1624 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Update from trust on 17:07 - Nov 24 by 3swan |
If they already hold the Trust in contempt I can;t see the issue of resignations forcing a change in stance.
Yes they were chancing it but always had the fall back position of the original agreed terms
I'm sure they have negotiated enough over their business career to know how far to push. |
Oh I suspect that for a short while they were concerned that there would be enough changes in the Trust that the deal would go back to members and would be discarded.
It goes to show how desperate they are to see it signed.
As I said a while ago, I firmly believe that they have also been told they would lose a court case. | | | |
| Update from trust on 17:14 - Nov 24 with 1614 views | E20Jack |
| Update from trust on 17:07 - Nov 24 by 3swan |
If they already hold the Trust in contempt I can;t see the issue of resignations forcing a change in stance.
Yes they were chancing it but always had the fall back position of the original agreed terms
I'm sure they have negotiated enough over their business career to know how far to push. |
Nothing to do with the fact people were resigning as such, more of what that could mean to the balance of power at the Trust. I have no doubt they would have people reading these forums to gauge the views of the customers - which seemed to be realisation that the deal is completely counter productive and could spark the end of the supporter input at the club forever.
They clearly thought that due to vacancies in the Trust board, the balance could certainly switch to pulling out of the deal. Something they have been rubbing their hands together not believing their luck for weeks. They were not going to let that happen. | |
| |
| Update from trust on 17:15 - Nov 24 with 1613 views | Flashberryjack |
| Update from trust on 16:53 - Nov 24 by londonlisa2001 |
It's quite possible I would think. |
It's more than "quite possible"......... I would think. |  |
| |
| Update from trust on 17:18 - Nov 24 with 1603 views | 3swan |
| Update from trust on 17:12 - Nov 24 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh I suspect that for a short while they were concerned that there would be enough changes in the Trust that the deal would go back to members and would be discarded.
It goes to show how desperate they are to see it signed.
As I said a while ago, I firmly believe that they have also been told they would lose a court case. |
I can understand the concerned bit, but if in negotiations the Trust threatened to go back to the members they would just have agreed the original terms, then giving the Trust no reason to go back to their members.
It wouldn't have looked favorably on the Trust if they went to court after the members had voted and got the original deal (even if after a but of brinkmanship) | | | |
| Update from trust on 17:22 - Nov 24 with 1579 views | 3swan |
| Update from trust on 17:14 - Nov 24 by E20Jack |
Nothing to do with the fact people were resigning as such, more of what that could mean to the balance of power at the Trust. I have no doubt they would have people reading these forums to gauge the views of the customers - which seemed to be realisation that the deal is completely counter productive and could spark the end of the supporter input at the club forever.
They clearly thought that due to vacancies in the Trust board, the balance could certainly switch to pulling out of the deal. Something they have been rubbing their hands together not believing their luck for weeks. They were not going to let that happen. |
Ah well who knows, just my opinion.
They are businessmen first and know very little about the complexities of football.
As I've just replied to Lisa, imo it's brinkmanship, | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
