By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
What a fine example of informative, determined and forthright posting from Uxbridge. The best set of posts I've seen on any one thread for quite some time. Congratulations. Keep up the good work.
I stand in the North Stand
-3
Independent Supporters Group on 14:31 - Dec 5 with 2482 views
Independent Supporters Group on 11:21 - Dec 5 by Uxbridge
The board was, yes.
I'd say the members were, yes. They were told enough. The broader fanbase? More difficult. I think there was a lot of detail out there, but how many pay attention away from off the pitch unless that goes bad?
Who can know? I suspect so. I'm not convinced that a recommendation of legal action would have been passed though. The membership have very different views to PS in my experience. Far from clear either way.
Naive beyond belief if you think that. (Which I dont think you really do)
The membership is not risk adverse at all, if they were then they would not have voted to take the deal. They are trusting, hence why you took advantage.
They would have gone with anything you recommended, simply because there was not enough information around for many to make a considered decision. We have seen the posts here and people have commented on conversations they have had with others - "knew the Americans would screw us over, but we have to trust the Trust" like some sort of sick hypnotic mantra.
It seems everyone and his dog knew the Americans would continue acting as they always have done, everyone bar the Trust board that is, who know bizarrely label it as "hindsight". It made no sense then and makes even less sense now, the whole thing is just bizarre beyind comprehension.
Uxbridge, since everybody seems intent on raking over past events rather than looking ahead, can you please fact check this sequence of events as i understand it?
After the deal was approved by Trust members mid August it was agreed that Team Kaplan would be responsible for the drafting. The first draft was then received some time shortly before early October and sent to Little for review and summarising. The first time the full board reviewed the terms was at the meeting on 6th November, and no new negotiations had taken place in the intervening period. Phil then resigned a few weeks after that meeting, right?
Had any further negotiations or discussions with Teamp Kaplan taken place in the interim?
Another question; did team Kaplan give any explanation why it had taken them so long to produce the first draft of the share purchase agreement?
Hi Phil 1. Please could you explain why an EMERGENCY GENERAL MEETING can't be called to oust the present board and vote in a NEW board 2. If an EGM can be called how many votes (of the current trust members) would be needed to oust the present board 3. If an EGM can be called could supporters re join/join to have a vote at that EGM or would the new members have to wait a certain amount of time before they could vote
Thanks
And since you are getting no joy with this elsewhere I'll take a stab.
1. No reason. Except there is an AGM already scheduled for January, and it's easier to do things there because the voting threshold is less burdensome
2. See 1. At an AGM you just need a simple majority of votes cast whereas at an EGM it is two thirds. How many votes you specifically need depends on how many votes the sitting board can muster. I'd say you need at least 150-200 votes (/proxies) to have a good chance
3. Yes. Same goes for an AGM.
My position is this; it is a very good move to get new proactive board members like Res, Lisa, ECB, etc.
But they will quite likely be hamstrung without a reform of the Trust rules, as a minimum first step the abolition of the confidentiality obligation. Get rid of that and they have a fighting chance of success, otherwise the decks are heavily stacked against them.
Thank you Shaky So if an EGM was called tomorrow (or whenever) and there was a new trust board put in place could they then abolition the confidentiality obligation
0
Independent Supporters Group on 18:09 - Dec 5 with 2281 views
Thank you Shaky So if an EGM was called tomorrow (or whenever) and there was a new trust board put in place could they then abolition the confidentiality obligation
My eyesight is seriously impaired for now, so I haven't read the rules in any detail.
That said, i believe the rule was adopted by the board so the board also has the power to abolish the rule.
Furthermore, the ordinary members without doubt also have the power to instruct the board not to adopt the rule through a vote at either an AGM or an EGM.
Independent Supporters Group on 18:09 - Dec 5 by Shaky
My eyesight is seriously impaired for now, so I haven't read the rules in any detail.
That said, i believe the rule was adopted by the board so the board also has the power to abolish the rule.
Furthermore, the ordinary members without doubt also have the power to instruct the board not to adopt the rule through a vote at either an AGM or an EGM.
. . .but the trick is that some other rule will say that for a resolution to be voted on at a shareholders meeting (AGM/EGM) it must be submitted to the Trust X days (eg 21/28??) in advance of the meeting.
If this website has shown ne thing, it's that there are passionate, intelligent, committed Swans fans out there who are prepared to challenge things which is in complete contrast to the existing Trust Board and Secretary who are about as much use as a chocolate tea pot quite frankly and yes Uxbridge that includes you and your useless toothless blarny .ðŸ‘
Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day
Independent Supporters Group on 07:59 - Dec 5 by Neath_Jack
What pisses me off is the implication that that we should be grateful that the high and mighty Trust wallahs, let us plebs even have a vote in the first place.
Toffee nosed tw@t.
I quite agree Jay, they run the supporters Trust that the members subscribe to and if they think they can make important decisions like selling the members shares without consulting the members then I'm glad my lad and me kept our tenners in our pockets. I notice he's ignored my posts to, I thought better than that of him, I suppose it sums the Trust up at this moment in time.
Independent Supporters Group on 18:16 - Dec 5 by swancity
If this website has shown ne thing, it's that there are passionate, intelligent, committed Swans fans out there who are prepared to challenge things which is in complete contrast to the existing Trust Board and Secretary who are about as much use as a chocolate tea pot quite frankly and yes Uxbridge that includes you and your useless toothless blarny .ðŸ‘
Our Trusts new slogan should be? "Give Quiche A Chance" like the useless 'Mr Passive' has got on his t-shirt in this video. Acts like him and has the same dynamic!
Argus!
0
Independent Supporters Group on 18:38 - Dec 5 with 2217 views
Independent Supporters Group on 20:26 - Dec 3 by londonlisa2001
Ive been thinking about this for a couple of hours now.
My thoughts, for what they're worth.
My belief is that the only responsibility of the Trust was to work as best it could towards the principles it sets out in its objectives, namely:
To maintain a professional football club in Swansea; To bring the football club closer to it’s local community; To have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club; To maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above; To represent the needs and aims of our members at all times;
If, at any point, those objectives became contradictory, then they should be prioritised, with (1) and (2) being the most important.
How it achieved that is a matter of opinion, and has certainly changed over the years.
I don't see anything in those aims which say 'make sure that the Trust never creates waves'. 'Make sure that the Trust never speaks out against the direction the club is taking'. Or anything similar.
Most on here believe that the club is a shambles. It lacks direction, fan engagement, the recruitment is woeful, the manager is floundering, players are needed, the squad is patchy and unbalanced, and we look like we are careering toward the Championship.
If the Trust does not speak out about this, then the first couple of stated Trust objectives are simply not being heeded.
Many on here have been saying for ages that the Trust needs to take action. To launch a PR campaign to explain to the fan base at large exactly what has happened at the club to get us to this point. I believed and still do, that this should be accompanied by legal action to build a war chest that gives the Trust the best chance of one day taking a strong position in the club once more.
I don't believe that the owners know what they are doing, and I don't believe they care about anything other than making a profit or at the very least getting their money back.
The Trust has been silent and toothless in terms of pointing this out.
So an opportunity has now come up for a few people who believe in change joining the board to make that change. I have volunteered to do this, as have others on here.
We now talk about a new group being formed instead.
I will bet everything that I have, that if a new group is formed, within months the only focus of the Trust will be fighting against the new group. I have zero interest in being involved with that. I'm not joining a Trust in an attempt to give it teeth for once, to find that those who are prepared to show their teeth have now set up an alternative vehicle.
Either the view is we get the Trust doing what it should be doing, or we take the view that the Trust is a patsy, and set up an alternative group. Doing both, seems to me to be divisive. I don't mind which it is (although if they won't listen to a 21% shareholder, God knows why they'll listen to another group) but if this is happening, I can't see the point of trying to change within the Trust as well. It'll be like Life of Brian.
The only other note I'd make - on a number of occasions, including recently, the Trust have called for fans to refrain from showing discontent within the ground, for fear it would upset the team (snigger). I take it that Phil and Matt didn't agree with this. Once again, I'm wondering who the absolute f*** has been taking these decisions.
Independent Supporters Group on 18:30 - Dec 5 by max936
I quite agree Jay, they run the supporters Trust that the members subscribe to and if they think they can make important decisions like selling the members shares without consulting the members then I'm glad my lad and me kept our tenners in our pockets. I notice he's ignored my posts to, I thought better than that of him, I suppose it sums the Trust up at this moment in time.
[Post edited 5 Dec 2017 18:31]
They did consult the members.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Independent Supporters Group on 20:03 - Dec 5 by Gowerjack
Is the correct answer.
This keeps going through my head - who is now the Puppetmaster - who is providing the thought leadership.
There are now not too many left on the Board after the resignations and Uxbridge must be too busy on the various sites defending the Trust’s Position. You then have the recent joiners to the Board last August, who I would t have thought are driving things.
That is why it is likely to be Nigel Hamer and this is so wrong as he has served more than 12 years and he is UNELECTED. Very happy to be corrected by Uxbridge on this - who is coming up with the ideas?
I also think very bad idea to form an Independent Supporters Group at the moment - it is a big distraction - Phil should just let go - unless Trust is being truly stitched up below the radar - which Phil is aware of and understands the only way of doing something about it is through this new Group.
Nigel Hamer really needs to move on.
0
Independent Supporters Group on 20:38 - Dec 5 with 2017 views
Independent Supporters Group on 20:36 - Dec 5 by Nookiejack
This keeps going through my head - who is now the Puppetmaster - who is providing the thought leadership.
There are now not too many left on the Board after the resignations and Uxbridge must be too busy on the various sites defending the Trust’s Position. You then have the recent joiners to the Board last August, who I would t have thought are driving things.
That is why it is likely to be Nigel Hamer and this is so wrong as he has served more than 12 years and he is UNELECTED. Very happy to be corrected by Uxbridge on this - who is coming up with the ideas?
I also think very bad idea to form an Independent Supporters Group at the moment - it is a big distraction - Phil should just let go - unless Trust is being truly stitched up below the radar - which Phil is aware of and understands the only way of doing something about it is through this new Group.
Nigel Hamer really needs to move on.
EDit recent joiners who are not driving things
0
Independent Supporters Group on 20:43 - Dec 5 with 2001 views
Independent Supporters Group on 20:36 - Dec 5 by Nookiejack
This keeps going through my head - who is now the Puppetmaster - who is providing the thought leadership.
There are now not too many left on the Board after the resignations and Uxbridge must be too busy on the various sites defending the Trust’s Position. You then have the recent joiners to the Board last August, who I would t have thought are driving things.
That is why it is likely to be Nigel Hamer and this is so wrong as he has served more than 12 years and he is UNELECTED. Very happy to be corrected by Uxbridge on this - who is coming up with the ideas?
I also think very bad idea to form an Independent Supporters Group at the moment - it is a big distraction - Phil should just let go - unless Trust is being truly stitched up below the radar - which Phil is aware of and understands the only way of doing something about it is through this new Group.
Nigel Hamer really needs to move on.
There's every need for an alternative Group, there's no confidence in the Trust, whichever way you want to dress things up, people were cajoled into voting to accept the deal, why? its like as if the yanks were told don't worry there won't be any legal case, we'll get this vote through that suits, then yanks try and change terms, which we are told are not significant well they must be significant enough for the resignations, you're never gonna keep the yanks sweet cause only they know what agenda they have.
Independent Supporters Group on 20:52 - Dec 5 by max936
There's every need for an alternative Group, there's no confidence in the Trust, whichever way you want to dress things up, people were cajoled into voting to accept the deal, why? its like as if the yanks were told don't worry there won't be any legal case, we'll get this vote through that suits, then yanks try and change terms, which we are told are not significant well they must be significant enough for the resignations, you're never gonna keep the yanks sweet cause only they know what agenda they have.
My gut feeling is this will lead to infighting between the Trust and the Independent Supporters Group whilst the Yanks walk away with the parachute money.
The Res, Lisa and ECB in and Nigel Hamer out - then things will change. Gut feel though.
0
Independent Supporters Group on 21:11 - Dec 5 with 1922 views
Independent Supporters Group on 20:36 - Dec 5 by Nookiejack
This keeps going through my head - who is now the Puppetmaster - who is providing the thought leadership.
There are now not too many left on the Board after the resignations and Uxbridge must be too busy on the various sites defending the Trust’s Position. You then have the recent joiners to the Board last August, who I would t have thought are driving things.
That is why it is likely to be Nigel Hamer and this is so wrong as he has served more than 12 years and he is UNELECTED. Very happy to be corrected by Uxbridge on this - who is coming up with the ideas?
I also think very bad idea to form an Independent Supporters Group at the moment - it is a big distraction - Phil should just let go - unless Trust is being truly stitched up below the radar - which Phil is aware of and understands the only way of doing something about it is through this new Group.
Nigel Hamer really needs to move on.
Nookie, Nigel Hamer is the board secretary, doing minutes, arranging meetings and sending communications not Ernst Blofeld mun. As far as I'm aware, he's not part of any negotiations etc.
0
Independent Supporters Group on 21:12 - Dec 5 with 1917 views
Independent Supporters Group on 21:04 - Dec 5 by Nookiejack
My gut feeling is this will lead to infighting between the Trust and the Independent Supporters Group whilst the Yanks walk away with the parachute money.
The Res, Lisa and ECB in and Nigel Hamer out - then things will change. Gut feel though.
I'll be happily surprised if they got in, it'll certainly go someway to restoring my faith, depends what obstacles are put in their way as to whether they'll accept getting Co- opted though.
Independent Supporters Group on 21:22 - Dec 5 by monmouth
So when do we know who is co-oped? After the deal is rushed through?
My “interview” is due to be tomorrow. I’m still hugely uncomfortable about being interviewed for it so I’m wavering about whether to go through with it. I’ll decide tomorrow.
Independent Supporters Group on 21:25 - Dec 5 by exiledclaseboy
My “interview” is due to be tomorrow. I’m still hugely uncomfortable about being interviewed for it so I’m wavering about whether to go through with it. I’ll decide tomorrow.
Don't forget, if they ask you where you see yourself in 12 years time, don't say "sitting where you are"!
4
Independent Supporters Group on 21:41 - Dec 5 with 1792 views
Independent Supporters Group on 20:36 - Dec 5 by Nookiejack
This keeps going through my head - who is now the Puppetmaster - who is providing the thought leadership.
There are now not too many left on the Board after the resignations and Uxbridge must be too busy on the various sites defending the Trust’s Position. You then have the recent joiners to the Board last August, who I would t have thought are driving things.
That is why it is likely to be Nigel Hamer and this is so wrong as he has served more than 12 years and he is UNELECTED. Very happy to be corrected by Uxbridge on this - who is coming up with the ideas?
I also think very bad idea to form an Independent Supporters Group at the moment - it is a big distraction - Phil should just let go - unless Trust is being truly stitched up below the radar - which Phil is aware of and understands the only way of doing something about it is through this new Group.
Nigel Hamer really needs to move on.
Judging who are the leaders behind Trust decisions would be easier to assess if we knew the tenures of the existing board members - as several on here have requested over the past couple of weeks. This could be determined from board minutes off the Trust website with the patience to go through them all.
0
Independent Supporters Group on 21:41 - Dec 5 with 1788 views
Independent Supporters Group on 21:25 - Dec 5 by exiledclaseboy
My “interview” is due to be tomorrow. I’m still hugely uncomfortable about being interviewed for it so I’m wavering about whether to go through with it. I’ll decide tomorrow.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
