Please log in or register
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
FAO Some Trust Person 14:12 - Nov 26 with 13218 viewsDarran

How many co-oppers have applied for co-option and when will we find out who’s been co-opted?

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0

FAO Some Trust Person on 15:50 - Nov 29 with 816 viewstrampie

Oops pressed to quote button by mistake. lol.

Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
Poll: UK European Union membership referendum poll

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 15:55 - Nov 29 with 808 viewsTheResurrection

FAO Some Trust Person on 14:22 - Nov 29 by chad

Spratty was once again debarred immediately after I mentioned in passing at the meeting before the vote, that I had not been able to bring the issues I raised at the meeting up on the website because of repeated bannings.

But yes I am the poster formally known as spratty chadders (banned a few days back after a couple of posts. Chad also banned after a couple of posts etc. etc. ad infinitum


Why exactly would Spratty and her other names be banned and continuously at that?
.

You see, this is where the likes of the snide Darren gets his teeth into someone and literally bullies them, goads them and gangs up on them. And this person was the one asking the serious questions Darren's now up in arms about.

The fact this is Phil's site makes these bans seem a lot more sinister.

Phil, or whoever the fack it is that's banned her again recently, why are you doing this??

* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Poll: Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

1
FAO Some Trust Person on 15:58 - Nov 29 with 803 viewsDarran

FAO Some Trust Person on 14:49 - Nov 29 by chad

I actually did a transcript of it because there was a lot of discussion on here about some of his responses that were quoted in the press.

It is better structured on the original post but cannot find the thread off hand so here is a copy of my post with the transcript of the exchange about 1/3rd of the way down


Trust Statement on 19:31 - Apr 12 with 713 views

Ok it was me that asked Jason these questions about the Shareholder Agreement at the meeting, so I have a fair insight into what went on….

I repeatedly pressed Jason about how we could trust them when the sale was conducted illegally in relation to the Shareholder Agreement. I was floored when he latterly very clearly said they had asked the Trust “are you interested in us acquiring your shares as well”. Phil was sat right next to Jason when he said this

Despite a rebuttal now being issued, it is a pity Phil said nothing at the time, thus giving it a sense of accuracy. It was too important for the Trust to say nothing in this situation, implicitly adding veracity to these comments, such that it was printed in local and national media with attendant implication that they were willing to buy our shares. Same for the denials over the Shareholder Agreement.

There need not have been any argument, just a simple statement in the pauses that followed at the end for e.g. just to put on record that the Trust provided a copy of the Shareholder agreement to the buyers before the sale.

I would also comment that "the members will decide" and "no offer has been made" has been used again and again on this very website when being urged to pursue a sale on the same terms as the other shareholders. The important word being PURSUE.

In reality the Trust statement does not comment on whether or not Jason actually asked the question he stated. Also if it was asked:
• what the Trusts response was
• Was the implied willingness to buy our shares on equal terms an actuality and if so why it was not negotiated by both sides to an offer – so the members may actually decide

I was taken back by Phil’s introduction when he said “we don’t see this evening as a look back at what happened at the share sale, we have had those discussions” Well no we certainly had not had that opportunity with those culpable.

I had pressed Jason so much on his knowledge of the Shareholder Agreement that I could not push on the implied offer to buy shares without taking over the meeting, which seemed unfair to others that had equally valid questions and had been bold enough to question their conduct during the sale in the first place (despite Phil instructing us at the start of the meeting that we should only look to the future). It seems fortuitous that sale conduct was addressed as the repeated questioning on this topic has thrown to open record both internal inconsistencies between answers and on the face of the Trust Statement – deviation from intention.

It is all contained in the recording of the meeting which was posted here and is on the Trust website http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/04/07/audio-recording-of-trust-members-forum/

I thought given my central involvement in this it may be useful from the recording of the meeting to provide a transcript of the main 6 minute segment relating to the Shareholder Agreement so that it can clearly be seen by anyone, what was and was not said by JASON

(the comments in between labelled MY NOTE are merely my musings - I make further comments at the end of the transcript) ……

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 59:38 on the recording – after already been told by another member that their conduct both before and after the sale was not particularly trustworthy and is the elephant in the room. Every time we ask for some real facts you are very evasive.

JASON - asked what facts we wanted to know and I interjected…….

ME Why you colluded with the sellers to keep the Trust out of it, and why you went ahead with the sale that was against the Shareholders Agreement and hadn’t met with the requirements – the legal requirements of the Shareholder Agreement.

Now you talk about heart and honesty, how can we believe that when you excluded the people who would be your main shareholders alongside you? We can’t believe that and you’ve got a big job making us believe that.

After some stuttering / superficial comments – understand your hurt great community great opportunity etc….

JASON - The majority of shares were held by shareholders other than the Trust and there was a chairman and er we engaged with the shareholders of the er club who owned almost 80% of the club and (pause) we went through the processes they thought they they directed us. Now (pause)

1:01:16 – 29 ME ??? More pushing by me difficult to pick up word for word – but if necessary this should be possible

JASON - Sure so what I would say is we certainly did not collude with these shareholders

(MY NOTE – if you worked with them to exclude the Trust – one of the main shareholders - from initial discussions / agreements, then from my understanding of the English language you most certainly did collude with them to exclude the Trust, although understand why you would want to deny this)

we had to negotiate with them they were the other side of the table

(MY NOTE – were the other main shareholders on the other side of the table, didn’t one of them attest that the main driver in this had fixed up the deal behind their back)

and we had to figure out could we acquire their shares and what price and what was the role we would play ahh

1:01:45 ME ??? – further comment by me pushing him on their actions

JASON - So in March of 2016 prior to us having er er a con

(MY NOTE - think he was going to say contract here and changed his mind and said deal – possibly because a pre-sale contract already existed at this stage and it’s admission did not look good)

a deal with any shareholders we met with the Supporters Trust. In August of 2016 well the end of July early August. 4 or so months later we consummated er a transaction with those shareholders.

(MY NOTE - consummated an interesting term - relating to enacting something to which an agreement was already in place)

So yes there was a period of time prior to March of 2016 when we were getting to know shareholders erm and we were around the club, I was. Learning about the club, learning about its history learning about how it was run, em but the first day that we formally told the Supporters Trust that we were interested in acquiring the shares. 4 months went by before we closed the transaction to buy those shares

(MY NOTE interesting again this period used as indication there was sufficient consultation with the trust, however to my recall it was well publicised that they wanted to push the sale through much quicker but there were delays – perhaps because of concerns re the shareholders agreement – also what real negotiations took place with the Trust during this time)

So erm eh I just wanted to make sure that that from our perspective maybe 4 months wasn’t enough time to communicate with the Supporters Trust prior to investing in the club maybe it should have been 6 months or 8 months

(MY NOTE – interesting admission yet as noted above the actual plan had been to conclude the sale much more quickly than it actually was)

erm but we certainly were communicating with the Trust prior to making any investment in the club.

1:02:53 – ME – but you already had done so much, you had done so much before that, which the Trust was excluded from. For instance we may in the situation, where, you may be very nice now in the situation that we are in while things are a bit in the air legally, but who knows what will happen in the future from people who excluded, the Trust.

Now we may have wanted to sell our shares. It may be a position that because we can’t do much to effect the club we could do that just as a fans group not as shareholders and we have been disadvantaged because we have not had the opportunity to sell our shares at the price that everyone else has. Because we could put that money aside and maybe save the club in future if needs be, while you went ahead.

And you know you say all the right things and I would expect nothing less from the two of you. And that is no insult or anything but you are going to say the right things aren’t you?

But obviously your interests is doing the best with the club that you can and that is great for us, but you are going to have a get out, if things go wrong, and that’s when it comes down to us the Trust. But we’ve been disadvantaged because we weren’t given first refusal for instance if we wanted to buy more shares, which was part of the Shareholder Agreement. And you knew that didn’t you? You knew about the Shareholder Agreement.

JASON - So number one em tut er we as soon as that that meeting was held with the Trust in March of 2016 erm I met with eh lawyers of the Trust and I said would you all be interested and we are four months away maybe three months six months, I didn’t know at that time, away from the transaction

Would you, are you interested in us acquiring your shares as well (murmurs from the room in response to that statement) so I did ask that question and there were four months that went by before we consummated the transaction that’s number one

Number two erm without getting into you know the details that that as best as I recall them

(MY NOTE –as best as I recall them – now you have my full attention)

We were not aware of any other arrangement where Shareholders Agreement erm with any other parties. We approached the shareholders to acquire their shares erm and when we did that erm (pause) we were not aware of any any other arrangements buddying? the parties

ME 1:05:24 So you were totally unaware of the shareholder agreement? You knew nothing of it?

JASON - It was represented to us that there was no shareholder agreement at the time that we came in to acquire the club

ME 1:05:35 but you knew there was one, but that it was told to you that it wasn’t valid? Is that correct? (pause)

Or are you saying you didn’t think there was a shareholders agreement at all

JASON – Yes

ME 1:05:50 – So you had never heard of a shareholder agreement?

JASON - so we had heard rumblings that there were different agreements between the parties, we’d never seen the document (pause)

we asked to see it
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


At this point (which raises so many more questions) in the pause that follows, the original questioner comes back in, talking about faith in the sellers, which is fair enough given the admirable patience shown to my lengthy interjection.

However IMHO sticking it to Huw et al is secondary to protecting the Trust’s value in the shares. These buyers are not children led by the nose by the sellers, but hard headed businessmen who colluded with the sellers to exclude their main future partners from initial negotiations and agreements. This speaks of an arrogance and total disregard for the fans and their shareholding by both sides. It also does not bode well for the future when we have no real power to enforce any protections, so they may basically do as they wish.

IMHO the exact words and contradictions made in relation to my questions to Jason on the Shareholders agreement in this recorded meeting are of some significance. Surely they were obvious questions and were directly asked before?

In relation to other comments I specifically (well before sale completion) urged that the Trust write to the buyers, telling them that they were taking part in a sale not legally conducted, as the provisions of the Shareholders Agreement were not being adhered to. I had no doubt the buyers smart lawyers (and hence the buyers) already knew this as it was all over the forums and they would have been negligent not looking for issues there. I have no idea if the Trust did formally notify the buyers about this, but my intention was it would have cut dead any claim of being unaware.

Experience of Americans taking over significant businesses here would suggest that they are fastidious (and rightfully so) about any existing obligations that they would be buying into, especially those that would limit their control to run the business to their plans and advantage.

There seems a significant mismatch between this and the laisse faire attitude which when asked about the shareholder agreement ranged from
• “without getting into you know the details that that as best as I recall them, We were not aware of any other arrangement where Shareholders Agreement erm with any other parties”
• “It was represented to us that there was no shareholder agreement at the time that we came in to acquire the club”
• In response to question: are you saying you didn’t think there was a shareholders agreement at all - answered “yes”!
• When pressed once again to confirm they knew nothing about the Shareholder Agreement – “so we had heard rumblings that there were different agreements between the parties, we’d never seen the document”
• Then following a pause added – “We asked to see it”

Difficult to compute. You asked to see a document you did not know about and the details around which it seems you could not previously really remember. Also you are saying you did not see a copy, but had no problems pressing ahead with the sale without it.

Not buying it, and in those circumstances neither should you have been.

In fairness though I would thank Jason for answering my questions in so far as it was practical to pursue them in such a meeting – it was a far more enlightening and mannered response than I have enjoyed from our Trust in the past.

The Trust should represent the future of football in Swansea and it would be beyond negligent if the member’s serious concerns and circa £20 million (that could go a long way to ensuring the aims of the Trust) were thrown down the drain at the preference for a non speaking part at the top table.

IMHO any conflicts in the buyers statements should add support to the case for forced buyout at the original price paid to the sellers (funded by either or both, sellers and buyers, depending on their precise contribution to the prejudiced position they contrived to put the trust in vis a vie our shareholding and resultant reduction in power and saleability and thus value). We should formally press them on this and give them the opportunity to settle in full out of court, with the clear and certain intention to take legal action if a full and equitable settlement is not made.

Of course the members should decide on the sale, but should be given full and frank information on risks / rewards including the value of the sale and how it can be used to save the club in future v’s the very marginal influence we now have as shareholders (which may, to much the same net effect, be discharged as a fans group). We should consider the potential massive decrease in share value if we hold onto the shares; also the possibility of shrinking shareholding % via share dilution (even potentially concluding in forced buy out over time at much inferior terms). Both sides of the case should be clearly presented including by those that favour selling as the best option for the Trust and its fundamental aims. This would ensure fair representation from both sides.

All these issues clearly raised ad infinitum on the forums pre-sale, as were the serious limitations on any protections afforded by the Chairs dream target of 25%+ ownership, which was seen as a panacea by many (even being brought up again at this meeting). Most concerning, the vice chair pre-sale incorrectly disputed the fundamental weakness in the 25%+ ownership aim, even though it had been clearly pointed out that the majority owners could dilute our shares down again removing any protection the 25%+ holding afforded (even if we could achieve it). This misled fans into thinking 25% was an ongoing safe haven.

Note re share dilution
• The issuing of new shares (resulting in share dilution – i.e. a reduction in % of the company owned by the shareholders existing shares) is a valid method to create capital and an alternative to taking out loans.
• Given their holding / voting rights our new owners have the power without our approval to issue new shares and buy the large majority of them themselves.
• We may also buy a number of new shares in proportion to the percentage of our existing holding (meaning overall we would maintain our % shareholding) but need the funds to do this
• If we do not have the funds to do this (and currently we do not), our allocation may be bought by the new owners or others. The additional shares issued and bought by others would mean that although we owned the same number of shares as previously, they now equate to a smaller percentage of the company
• Over time if our shareholding % falls below a certain level it is possible we could be forcibly bought out if the majority holding wanted to do that for any reason


You forgot to add “and the night then ended with me and Jason Levien having a big hug and a giggle together.” lol

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 16:26 - Nov 29 with 745 viewsJackfath

FAO Some Trust Person on 07:52 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection

They won't, because even in the last week all they've done is push and poke and tried their best to get a reaction.

The real curse of this site and as a result, the football club. Darren and Jackfath know no shame.


I am not sure this is accurate.


POSTER OF THE YEAR 2013. PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE SECOND PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD. THE ALL MERCIFUL.
Poll: Do you think the price of next season's season ticket will...

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 16:31 - Nov 29 with 735 viewsDarran

FAO Some Trust Person on 15:55 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection

Why exactly would Spratty and her other names be banned and continuously at that?
.

You see, this is where the likes of the snide Darren gets his teeth into someone and literally bullies them, goads them and gangs up on them. And this person was the one asking the serious questions Darren's now up in arms about.

The fact this is Phil's site makes these bans seem a lot more sinister.

Phil, or whoever the fack it is that's banned her again recently, why are you doing this??


I never banned Spratty. I wasn’t a Mod when the banning took place,that was the same time as you got removed from here.
If you remember youwere over on nonce.com thick as thieves. You even got that prick Catullus to go to a Forum and do your dirty work for you.

You’ve got to have a good memory to be a good accuser and you’re just a çunt.
[Post edited 29 Nov 16:38]

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 16:37 - Nov 29 with 713 viewsDarran

FAO Some Trust Person on 16:31 - Nov 29 by Darran

I never banned Spratty. I wasn’t a Mod when the banning took place,that was the same time as you got removed from here.
If you remember youwere over on nonce.com thick as thieves. You even got that prick Catullus to go to a Forum and do your dirty work for you.

You’ve got to have a good memory to be a good accuser and you’re just a çunt.
[Post edited 29 Nov 16:38]


And as you can see whoever banned Spratty was also removing my posts. lol

https://planetswans.fansnetwork.co.uk/forum/136574/farewell-to-planet-swans/#0

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0

FAO Some Trust Person on 17:20 - Nov 29 with 641 viewstrampie

Darren you are beginning to come out of this very badly, come the revolution and all that I don't fancy your chances, same with Dung.
Some people who have been on the wrong side better remember that lots of people have long memories.

Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
Poll: UK European Union membership referendum poll

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 17:25 - Nov 29 with 628 viewsDarran

FAO Some Trust Person on 17:20 - Nov 29 by trampie

Darren you are beginning to come out of this very badly, come the revolution and all that I don't fancy your chances, same with Dung.
Some people who have been on the wrong side better remember that lots of people have long memories.


I’m not on anyone’s side Boyo.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 17:27 - Nov 29 with 623 viewsTheResurrection

FAO Some Trust Person on 16:31 - Nov 29 by Darran

I never banned Spratty. I wasn’t a Mod when the banning took place,that was the same time as you got removed from here.
If you remember youwere over on nonce.com thick as thieves. You even got that prick Catullus to go to a Forum and do your dirty work for you.

You’ve got to have a good memory to be a good accuser and you’re just a çunt.
[Post edited 29 Nov 16:38]


I didn't say you banned her so either learn to read or piss off from serious debate you snide waster.

* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Poll: Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 17:32 - Nov 29 with 604 viewstrampie

FAO Some Trust Person on 17:25 - Nov 29 by Darran

I’m not on anyone’s side Boyo.


Have you heard the saying 'if you are not with us then you are against us', very common in revolutionary circles so I'm told.

Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
Poll: UK European Union membership referendum poll

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 17:32 - Nov 29 with 604 viewsDarran

FAO Some Trust Person on 17:27 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection

I didn't say you banned her so either learn to read or piss off from serious debate you snide waster.


Piss off yourself.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 17:35 - Nov 29 with 595 viewsmonmouth

FAO Some Trust Person on 12:15 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection

Why thank you for your kind description.

A loose Canon terrorist. Great. 😉

People are a bit precious it seems, ooh he used a swear word at me, ooh I'll see if I can make him react by winding him up....

A lot need to man up or get out of the way. If you've got something to say then say it, stop dithering and hiding behind each others backs and Bullshit collective responsibility. If I was on the Trust Board the first thing I'd say is I'm not adhering to that and my reasons, well just look at the mess you've made of it all and the lack of direction and trust you've caused.

Loose Canon terrorist, most of you would be none the wiser if it wasn't for me.


It wasn't an insult, it was a compliment. I don't want you or anyone come to that bound by some committee rules when the first loyalty should be to the supporters, not the Trust board. In fact, I think I was wrong, I think I'd rather see you in there smashing that kind of crap out of the park.

Also it really IS a true test of their willingness to do something different if they co-opt you. Yep. I'm sold.

Poll: TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 18:00 - Nov 29 with 553 viewsNookiejack

FAO Some Trust Person on 13:14 - Nov 29 by londonlisa2001

Nookie, I'm not being funny, but you seem to be suggesting that these connections are new knowledge?

And there has been talk about the Trust rules on here for days now, and it's been pointed out that Nigel Hamer was one of the original signatories, so what are you waiting for confirmation about?


Is there a rule about a non-elected Secretary serving indefinitely?
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 18:02 - Nov 29 with 549 viewsMoscowJack

FAO Some Trust Person on 17:35 - Nov 29 by monmouth

It wasn't an insult, it was a compliment. I don't want you or anyone come to that bound by some committee rules when the first loyalty should be to the supporters, not the Trust board. In fact, I think I was wrong, I think I'd rather see you in there smashing that kind of crap out of the park.

Also it really IS a true test of their willingness to do something different if they co-opt you. Yep. I'm sold.


No disrespect Mon, but I think not following committee rules partly got us into this mess.

I think the rules need to be respected, but that doesn't mean not asking awkward questions, facing up to those too comfortable in their roles to want to stand up for the fans and doing what's right, even if you don't necessarily agree with it.

There's a comfort zone waiting in Swansea and it's about to get hit between the legs with some of the best on here! I'm really looking forward to it.....
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 18:07 - Nov 29 with 532 viewslondonlisa2001

FAO Some Trust Person on 18:00 - Nov 29 by Nookiejack

Is there a rule about a non-elected Secretary serving indefinitely?


Well they've just said there isn't a rule that anyone is taking any notice of that says a board members can't serve indefinitely so I wouldn't assume so, no.
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 18:12 - Nov 29 with 518 viewsmonmouth

FAO Some Trust Person on 18:02 - Nov 29 by MoscowJack

No disrespect Mon, but I think not following committee rules partly got us into this mess.

I think the rules need to be respected, but that doesn't mean not asking awkward questions, facing up to those too comfortable in their roles to want to stand up for the fans and doing what's right, even if you don't necessarily agree with it.

There's a comfort zone waiting in Swansea and it's about to get hit between the legs with some of the best on here! I'm really looking forward to it.....


yes, I meant getting rid of rules that aren't in the best interest of supporters, but are for the benefit of the placemen on the committee. So get shot of the gagging clauses and introduce a 3 to 6 year maximum stint for everyone unless there is zero interest from a replacement. Force regular change.

Poll: TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote

2
FAO Some Trust Person on 18:49 - Nov 29 with 457 viewsNookiejack

FAO Some Trust Person on 18:12 - Nov 29 by monmouth

yes, I meant getting rid of rules that aren't in the best interest of supporters, but are for the benefit of the placemen on the committee. So get shot of the gagging clauses and introduce a 3 to 6 year maximum stint for everyone unless there is zero interest from a replacement. Force regular change.


What is galling is that after the detailed review they appear to have saw fit to even get rid of the 12 year rule, incredible.

3 year maximum stints for me (in contrast to 3 to 6 year terms)- football is show business and people who start off with good intentions and can be blinded by the flashing lights of the Premier League, Directors box, developing close relationships with the club directors etc.

Persons undertaking Trust secretary role should have a maximum stint of 1 year - they are unelected and are there to take the minutes. They should have no opportunity to be able to pull the strings/give their views on strategy in the background without standing for election. (Which hopefully the current Trust secretary is not doing).

I would prefer if the Trust secretary would be an elected Trust Board member.
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 18:52 - Nov 29 with 453 viewschad

FAO Some Trust Person on 16:31 - Nov 29 by Darran

I never banned Spratty. I wasn’t a Mod when the banning took place,that was the same time as you got removed from here.
If you remember youwere over on nonce.com thick as thieves. You even got that prick Catullus to go to a Forum and do your dirty work for you.

You’ve got to have a good memory to be a good accuser and you’re just a çunt.
[Post edited 29 Nov 16:38]


You never banned me, what did you press the button with your dogs paw.

I was repeatedly banned when you were a mod virtually whenever I posted anything you disagreed with and always you were there having a go at me at the time.

If Spratty was reactivated all the evidence is there. ......


In the dozens of times I have been banned I have never had an explanation; nor a response when I emailed admin to ask for an explanation.

When Darran was a mod I think he repeatedly did it for his own amusement (I initially provoked his ire when speaking up against his repeated abuse of some excellent Danish posters – and later for my concern re the classless nature of Laudrup’s sacking and re the appointment of Monk).

Of course he would reinstate me, as sadly I was his entertainment.

It got to the point where he would be there with his sickening abuse even if I went on the matchday thread to wish the team well.


Even after Darran was removed as mod I would be banned for bringing up contentious issues relating to Trust statements and pointing out misleading statements and misconceptions that were allowed to be formed without correction. I was also banned I can only presume for reporting Daran’s sickening abuse, even though Phil had actually asked us to report abuse at the time.

During this time I was not reinstated after a few days or more as with Darran, So had to keep making new IDs up. But co-incidentally ummm was banned after Darran saying I should be or would be if I mentioned something again. But most of the time I was just repeatedly banned as soon as I made a post. I was not hiding the fact I was Spratty.

I have actually been very supportive of the Trust in the past and of Phil’s considerable work (although I have serious concerns over the way things have been handled of late, and believe there are service timescales there for a reason).

Phil knows of the bannings and abuse because I have repeatedly raised it, and even (in attempt to get him to see how unacceptable this all was) asked him how he would feel if his daughter was abused in the same way. I think in Phil’s response he basically blamed me because I defended myself against the abuse.

Unfortunately I am not one to bend to bullies or unfairness nor should I have to.

However at no time was I abusive myself just made it clear how unacceptable the behaviour was.

Even my husband tried to speak to Phil about how totally unacceptable the abuse and bannings were at the end of the last meeting (after Phil had had a go at me for mentioning it in passing at the meeting). The result, as soon as I got home after that meeting Spratty was banned again and has been so ever since.

It is a shame because my husband could be a real asset to the Trust, but he is sickened by this abusive behaviour, so wants no part in it.
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 19:02 - Nov 29 with 430 viewsDarran

FAO Some Trust Person on 18:52 - Nov 29 by chad

You never banned me, what did you press the button with your dogs paw.

I was repeatedly banned when you were a mod virtually whenever I posted anything you disagreed with and always you were there having a go at me at the time.

If Spratty was reactivated all the evidence is there. ......


In the dozens of times I have been banned I have never had an explanation; nor a response when I emailed admin to ask for an explanation.

When Darran was a mod I think he repeatedly did it for his own amusement (I initially provoked his ire when speaking up against his repeated abuse of some excellent Danish posters – and later for my concern re the classless nature of Laudrup’s sacking and re the appointment of Monk).

Of course he would reinstate me, as sadly I was his entertainment.

It got to the point where he would be there with his sickening abuse even if I went on the matchday thread to wish the team well.


Even after Darran was removed as mod I would be banned for bringing up contentious issues relating to Trust statements and pointing out misleading statements and misconceptions that were allowed to be formed without correction. I was also banned I can only presume for reporting Daran’s sickening abuse, even though Phil had actually asked us to report abuse at the time.

During this time I was not reinstated after a few days or more as with Darran, So had to keep making new IDs up. But co-incidentally ummm was banned after Darran saying I should be or would be if I mentioned something again. But most of the time I was just repeatedly banned as soon as I made a post. I was not hiding the fact I was Spratty.

I have actually been very supportive of the Trust in the past and of Phil’s considerable work (although I have serious concerns over the way things have been handled of late, and believe there are service timescales there for a reason).

Phil knows of the bannings and abuse because I have repeatedly raised it, and even (in attempt to get him to see how unacceptable this all was) asked him how he would feel if his daughter was abused in the same way. I think in Phil’s response he basically blamed me because I defended myself against the abuse.

Unfortunately I am not one to bend to bullies or unfairness nor should I have to.

However at no time was I abusive myself just made it clear how unacceptable the behaviour was.

Even my husband tried to speak to Phil about how totally unacceptable the abuse and bannings were at the end of the last meeting (after Phil had had a go at me for mentioning it in passing at the meeting). The result, as soon as I got home after that meeting Spratty was banned again and has been so ever since.

It is a shame because my husband could be a real asset to the Trust, but he is sickened by this abusive behaviour, so wants no part in it.


“Even after Darran was removed as mod I would be banned for bringing up contentious issues relating to Trust statements and pointing out misleading statements and misconceptions that were allowed to be formed without correction”

And there you go. Proves it was nothing to do with me so jog on.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 19:03 - Nov 29 with 423 viewschad

FAO Some Trust Person on 15:58 - Nov 29 by Darran

You forgot to add “and the night then ended with me and Jason Levien having a big hug and a giggle together.” lol


You know what they say – keep your friends close … ;)

You need to understand it is merely business to them and that’s how we need to treat it if we want to do the best for the Trust. We need to match them toe to toe whilst remaining resolute but polite.

However, strange you have changed from reporting it as a

laugh and a joke” in April

to being “a big hug and a giggle” now

what an intimate girly picture you paint, god knows what you will be saying next time


But of course you were not there were you? Did your “mate” who was reporting back to you on me!!! update their report?

How sad for you that you are so bitter you need to stoop to making things up in such a weak attempt to try and belittle someone who is speaking out.

As I made clear at the time:

As I had given Jason a bit of a grilling I did go and very briefly shake hands with him after the meeting and say that although I was unhappy with many things, I would like to thank them for coming and him for answering my questions. Then we immediately left the meeting, in fact we were one of the first out of the car park. As Phil was stood right next to Jason perhaps I should have got them together and asked more questions whilst I was on a hot streak.

Unfortunately I am not much of a giggler and there was no joke, but I certainly would smile when thanking someone. After being a bit of an attack dog when questioning him I wanted to cause no bad feeling, especially as at the start of the meeting the Trust Chair had told us (much to the obvious surprise and disappointment of many present) “we don’t see this evening as a look back at what happened at the share sale, we have had those discussions”.

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/forum/193028/page:6
[Post edited 29 Nov 19:14]
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 19:09 - Nov 29 with 404 viewschad

FAO Some Trust Person on 19:02 - Nov 29 by Darran

“Even after Darran was removed as mod I would be banned for bringing up contentious issues relating to Trust statements and pointing out misleading statements and misconceptions that were allowed to be formed without correction”

And there you go. Proves it was nothing to do with me so jog on.


Try reading it again
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 19:28 - Nov 29 with 366 viewsDarran

FAO Some Trust Person on 19:09 - Nov 29 by chad

Try reading it again


Go away.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 19:33 - Nov 29 with 351 viewsNeath_Jack

FAO Some Trust Person on 18:52 - Nov 29 by chad

You never banned me, what did you press the button with your dogs paw.

I was repeatedly banned when you were a mod virtually whenever I posted anything you disagreed with and always you were there having a go at me at the time.

If Spratty was reactivated all the evidence is there. ......


In the dozens of times I have been banned I have never had an explanation; nor a response when I emailed admin to ask for an explanation.

When Darran was a mod I think he repeatedly did it for his own amusement (I initially provoked his ire when speaking up against his repeated abuse of some excellent Danish posters – and later for my concern re the classless nature of Laudrup’s sacking and re the appointment of Monk).

Of course he would reinstate me, as sadly I was his entertainment.

It got to the point where he would be there with his sickening abuse even if I went on the matchday thread to wish the team well.


Even after Darran was removed as mod I would be banned for bringing up contentious issues relating to Trust statements and pointing out misleading statements and misconceptions that were allowed to be formed without correction. I was also banned I can only presume for reporting Daran’s sickening abuse, even though Phil had actually asked us to report abuse at the time.

During this time I was not reinstated after a few days or more as with Darran, So had to keep making new IDs up. But co-incidentally ummm was banned after Darran saying I should be or would be if I mentioned something again. But most of the time I was just repeatedly banned as soon as I made a post. I was not hiding the fact I was Spratty.

I have actually been very supportive of the Trust in the past and of Phil’s considerable work (although I have serious concerns over the way things have been handled of late, and believe there are service timescales there for a reason).

Phil knows of the bannings and abuse because I have repeatedly raised it, and even (in attempt to get him to see how unacceptable this all was) asked him how he would feel if his daughter was abused in the same way. I think in Phil’s response he basically blamed me because I defended myself against the abuse.

Unfortunately I am not one to bend to bullies or unfairness nor should I have to.

However at no time was I abusive myself just made it clear how unacceptable the behaviour was.

Even my husband tried to speak to Phil about how totally unacceptable the abuse and bannings were at the end of the last meeting (after Phil had had a go at me for mentioning it in passing at the meeting). The result, as soon as I got home after that meeting Spratty was banned again and has been so ever since.

It is a shame because my husband could be a real asset to the Trust, but he is sickened by this abusive behaviour, so wants no part in it.


If that's true what you're saying about Phil, it's disgusting behaviour from him. And i for one am glad he's not Chairman anymore if that's the kind of man he is. Shameful.

Two sides to every story and all that.

I want a mate like Flashberryjacks, who wears a Barnsley jersey with "Swans are my second team" on the back.
Poll: Who Has Been Our Best (upto you to define) Signing The Past 25 Years

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 19:36 - Nov 29 with 339 viewsDarran

FAO Some Trust Person on 19:33 - Nov 29 by Neath_Jack

If that's true what you're saying about Phil, it's disgusting behaviour from him. And i for one am glad he's not Chairman anymore if that's the kind of man he is. Shameful.

Two sides to every story and all that.


It’s not true and even if it was it was nothing to do with Phil. FACT

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0

FAO Some Trust Person on 19:38 - Nov 29 with 330 viewsTheResurrection

Darran is repeatedly proven to be the absolute mess he is.

His perceived relationship with Phil Sumbler has led to many an accusation. Now I like Phil and have it on good authority he sees Darran as a major pest who he tolerates in small doses, but the "dirty work" done on here has never been forgotten, and never will when this creature is allowed to still ruin any thread he gets involved with.

Spratty gets banned repeatedly for reasons never explained.

Darran is allowed to troll, belittle, racially bully, mock fringe communities and ruin discussion.

Why the fack has he been allowed to continue?

* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Poll: Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2017 hosted by FastHosts