| Swansea City Supporters Trust 20:42 - Dec 11 with 11710 views | TheResurrection |
Right, let's make today the start of a new dawn for the Trust and make sure we all get the transparency it needs.
Phil, can you make this a permanent sticky so posters have a focal point for anything Trust related?
Firstly I'd like to ask to see the 5 new Trust Board member's 250 words.
Ux, can you get Nigel Hamer to send you those so we can have a read and see what we're getting. Also can we see the words of the applicants that didn't get on, to see what we missed out on?
I understand the Chairman is being announced, or at least discussed in a meeting tomorrow. What is the criteria for the decision making for that appointment?
Thanks in advance. |  |
| |  |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:17 - Dec 13 with 1408 views | longlostjack |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:39 - Dec 13 by Dewi1jack |
Not only that, but a lot of Trust members (and a very feisty new lady co-optee- if that's a word. You know what I mean) live away from Swansea.
Wouldn't it be better to have forums/ meetings on a Saturday before a match?
Give every member a chance to attend.
Or do forums/ meetings/ AGM by video link?
Give every member a 'membership type' number so only that person can log in (soon know if they've passed it to anyone) and ask questions/ just listen and observe.
Well done to everyone who got on and those who failed.
Chris, go for an elected position "get into 'em ..."
Well done Eilian. Don't worry that your written application is rough or whatever, it's certainly passionate and that's what we need fighting for the members and ultimately the club. |
Yes of course they should be held before a game. Holding them in the middle of the week makes it difficult enough to attend if you lived in Cardiff let alone London. Feel very strongly about this. The time to make the Trust more accessible to all fans is long overdue. [Post edited 13 Dec 2017 18:31]
|  |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:05 - Dec 13 with 1324 views | SkettyJack |
Reading the details of the new coopted members of the board I can see why I wasn't elected. Really really impressed with the skills available
I wish you all the very best with your appointments and I hope this will be the change of direction the trust needs |  | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:20 - Dec 13 with 1307 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:39 - Dec 13 by Darran |
To avoid confusion we should call ECB Andy he prefers that anyway. |
Tw@t. |  |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:33 - Dec 13 with 1291 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:35 - Dec 13 by chad |
Welcome one and all
A few questions from me to all the new Trust Board members — and the existing ones for that matter
1. How did you vote in the deal ballot? If you did not vote, why and how would you have voted? Has your view on how the vote should go changed now
2. What will you do, if anything (before the deal is executed) to allow a fair hearing, to evidence the serious concerns about the way the information was biasedly represented by the Trust to push the deal through (including an official announcement at the pre vote meeting to deliberately try to discredit other opinions and facts) and the way in which the wider support was deliberately excluded from this critical decision. Especially given the main driver of the vote for the deal (and motivator of other voters) has now said he would vote against it given the chance.
3. As a large drive for the vote was posited on a good relationship of trust with the new owners is not the attempt to change the terms of the agreement a significant and fundamental change to those that were (despite serious misgivings) willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the say so of the Trust.
Out of interest could I also ask why Lisa was not given a vote, as the reason I thought (location) also applies to someone who was?
Thank you one and all in anticipation of a reply |
1 - I voted against the deal and if the vote was held again I’d do the same thing.
2 - I think the Trust should be considering going back to the members to ask them again if they still want to go ahead with the deal. I said as much last night. It is possible that there may have been a change in members’ views since the original vote given recent events. Tomorrow’s forum could be interesting in that respect. I’d urge trust members who feel strongly against the deal to get there tomorrow if you can and make those views known.
3 - it could certainly be seen that way.
4 - Lisa doesnt have a vote because she’s an affiliate, not a full board member. [Post edited 13 Dec 2017 21:47]
| |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:46 - Dec 13 with 1275 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:33 - Dec 13 by exiledclaseboy |
1 - I voted against the deal and if the vote was held again I’d do the same thing.
2 - I think the Trust should be considering going back to the members to ask them again if they still want to go ahead with the deal. I said as much last night. It is possible that there may have been a change in members’ views since the original vote given recent events. Tomorrow’s forum could be interesting in that respect. I’d urge trust members who feel strongly against the deal to get there tomorrow if you can and make those views known.
3 - it could certainly be seen that way.
4 - Lisa doesnt have a vote because she’s an affiliate, not a full board member. [Post edited 13 Dec 2017 21:47]
|
Oh, I still have a bite Clasie...
Lol. | | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:48 - Dec 13 with 1267 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:46 - Dec 13 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh, I still have a bite Clasie...
Lol. |
Ha. I hate apple at times. | |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Dec 13 with 1244 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:35 - Dec 13 by chad |
Welcome one and all
A few questions from me to all the new Trust Board members — and the existing ones for that matter
1. How did you vote in the deal ballot? If you did not vote, why and how would you have voted? Has your view on how the vote should go changed now
2. What will you do, if anything (before the deal is executed) to allow a fair hearing, to evidence the serious concerns about the way the information was biasedly represented by the Trust to push the deal through (including an official announcement at the pre vote meeting to deliberately try to discredit other opinions and facts) and the way in which the wider support was deliberately excluded from this critical decision. Especially given the main driver of the vote for the deal (and motivator of other voters) has now said he would vote against it given the chance.
3. As a large drive for the vote was posited on a good relationship of trust with the new owners is not the attempt to change the terms of the agreement a significant and fundamental change to those that were (despite serious misgivings) willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the say so of the Trust.
Out of interest could I also ask why Lisa was not given a vote, as the reason I thought (location) also applies to someone who was?
Thank you one and all in anticipation of a reply |
I voted for legal action. I still believe that is correct. Incidentally, I would have voted for maintaining the status quo as a second option, not accepting the deal.
As you've pointed out, I do not have a vote, but I do have a say, and I've been making my feelings known just this afternoon (I wasn't able to get to Swansea yesterday). I believe that there have been fundamental changes since the vote and I believe it should go back to members.
On the co-opting vs affiliate question, it was proposed that it happens, and I accepted the proposal. Others may be in a different situation. I don't believe, genuinely, that it stops me from making every effort to influence, and in some ways, I believe it gives me more flexibility. If I cannot effect change, I will have to think again. | | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:37 - Dec 13 with 1202 views | Darran |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:20 - Dec 13 by exiledclaseboy |
Tw@t. |
 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:43 - Dec 13 with 1195 views | NeathJack |
I hope there is a proposal at tomorrows forum and a binding vote from the floor to request/demand the removal of Huw Jenkins as Chairman and de-facto DOF.
Even if the Yanks ignore it, it would be a worthwhile undertaking as it would put pressure on the Yanks/Jenkins and hopefully at the very least increase awareness among the many fans who still seem oblivious to goings on. |  | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:25 - Dec 14 with 1086 views | chad |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Dec 13 by londonlisa2001 |
I voted for legal action. I still believe that is correct. Incidentally, I would have voted for maintaining the status quo as a second option, not accepting the deal.
As you've pointed out, I do not have a vote, but I do have a say, and I've been making my feelings known just this afternoon (I wasn't able to get to Swansea yesterday). I believe that there have been fundamental changes since the vote and I believe it should go back to members.
On the co-opting vs affiliate question, it was proposed that it happens, and I accepted the proposal. Others may be in a different situation. I don't believe, genuinely, that it stops me from making every effort to influence, and in some ways, I believe it gives me more flexibility. If I cannot effect change, I will have to think again. |
Many thanks to both ECB and Lisa for their open and honest responses. I look forward to the responses of the others in due course, or possibly at tonight's meeting
Lisa re your first paragraph I so agree, if the vote had not been structured to only give those in favour of the deal 2 bites of the cherry then I would have voted to keep all the shares as a second choice. The fact that that option made no hard logical sense, speaks of how poor the deal was.
As I said at the pre vote meeting, to keep the shares we had worked so hard to earn, was the choice of the heart, to take legal action was the vote of the head and our best chance to achieve the aims of the Trust long term, given the impossible situation we had been placed in by the sale, where our shares were pretty much worthless and keeping them added little or nothing to our influence given the track record and primary aims of the new owners.
The deal (which passed all control to the new owners, on when, and by whom, the Trust would be bought out of the club) only made any sense if the share prices rocketed. Even in the event of that very unlikely looking scenario occurring, we gifted the sellers options to buy further large tranches of our shares at the old price so they could make further significant profits off our backs, and in the meantime had to bend totally to their power.
Kowtowing to untrustworthy, profit sucking owners, whilst giving them total control over us, is an horrific bastardisation of the principles the Supporters Trust was set up to retain.
It is our Trust and our shares, if its Board is not fit for purpose and flagrantly flouts its own rules and unilaterally imposes new ones to stop concerned Board members expressing those concerns to the supporters they represent, whilst deliberately excluding the wider supporter base on critical issues — then it changes and it changes now, or it is removed. |  | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:41 - Dec 14 with 1065 views | Nookiejack |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:25 - Dec 14 by chad |
Many thanks to both ECB and Lisa for their open and honest responses. I look forward to the responses of the others in due course, or possibly at tonight's meeting
Lisa re your first paragraph I so agree, if the vote had not been structured to only give those in favour of the deal 2 bites of the cherry then I would have voted to keep all the shares as a second choice. The fact that that option made no hard logical sense, speaks of how poor the deal was.
As I said at the pre vote meeting, to keep the shares we had worked so hard to earn, was the choice of the heart, to take legal action was the vote of the head and our best chance to achieve the aims of the Trust long term, given the impossible situation we had been placed in by the sale, where our shares were pretty much worthless and keeping them added little or nothing to our influence given the track record and primary aims of the new owners.
The deal (which passed all control to the new owners, on when, and by whom, the Trust would be bought out of the club) only made any sense if the share prices rocketed. Even in the event of that very unlikely looking scenario occurring, we gifted the sellers options to buy further large tranches of our shares at the old price so they could make further significant profits off our backs, and in the meantime had to bend totally to their power.
Kowtowing to untrustworthy, profit sucking owners, whilst giving them total control over us, is an horrific bastardisation of the principles the Supporters Trust was set up to retain.
It is our Trust and our shares, if its Board is not fit for purpose and flagrantly flouts its own rules and unilaterally imposes new ones to stop concerned Board members expressing those concerns to the supporters they represent, whilst deliberately excluding the wider supporter base on critical issues — then it changes and it changes now, or it is removed. |
"As I said at the pre vote meeting, to keep the shares we had worked so hard to earn, was the choice of the heart, to take legal action was the vote of the head and our best chance to achieve the aims of the Trust long term, given the impossible situation we had been placed in by the sale, where our shares were pretty much worthless and keeping them added little or nothing to our influence given the track record and primary aims of the new owners.
The deal (which passed all control to the new owners, on when, and by whom, the Trust would be bought out of the club) only made any sense if the share prices rocketed. Even in the event of that very unlikely looking scenario occurring, we gifted the sellers options to buy further large tranches of our shares at the old price so they could make further significant profits off our backs, and in the meantime had to bend totally to their power. "
This is a great post - the leaders of the Trust Board got the strategy wrong (and yes I think you are right it was a choice of the heart, so it is difficult to be hard on them) - they thought we would stay in the PL for ever, even though the probabilities will always work against us for a club of our size. (you just have to have a couple of bad transfer windows or a bad run of injuries to your top players, bad managerial appointment (which I don't think Clement is) and you are going to be in a relegation fight.
They didn't take into consideration that each and every season 3 clubs are relegated.
Those leaders got it wrong and have potentially put the £20m legacy in severe risk. I worry that some of those remaining leaders are still pulling the strings.
"The deal (which passed all control to the new owners, on when, and by whom, the Trust would be bought out of the club) only made any sense if the share prices rocketed. Even in the event of that very unlikely looking scenario occurring, we gifted the sellers options to buy further large tranches of our shares at the old price so they could make further significant profits off our backs, and in the meantime had to bend totally to their power. "
Very good summary again and I would add 1 thing to this - in the relegation scenario which we are now staring at - conceding the drag rights means that all the Trust's shares could be bought out for a few pence. (Noting the Trust would receive £5m for first 5% tranche). Essentially £15m (£20m - £5m) has a very high probability of being lost and the Trust will be left with NIL shares. | | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:31 - Dec 14 with 992 views | chad |
Thanks Nookie it is ridiculous to think that the deal gives the new owners right to sell us out of our club for pennies if that is all they can get. Heartbreaking
Just to clarify one point:
the heart option for me was keeping all our shares with:
- no partial sellout to the new owners
- no giving up our rights and control of the Trusts future / shares to them
- no kowtowing to their increasing demands
As with Lisa that would have been my second option after legal action.
For me the deal was a non-starter.
There were just so many unacceptable things about it and it so stacked everything up in the new owners favour whilst giving up control of the Trust, being gagged and our recourse to legal action taken away in relation to the serious wrongs committed as part of the sale.
It also left us in a weakened toxic ongoing legal wrangling relationship with the new owners who had clearly proved their view of us with their destructive behaviour from the outset.
I cannot understand why the Trust would recommend that deal except perhaps as Shaky suggested to gamble on the market — or possibly as others suggested concerns of what would come out.
I cannot accept the biased argument presented to the members both in the written communication and at the pre vote meeting, nor the deliberate misrepresentations of Counsel advice to push the deal through. Nor at the very best a totally naive concept of their own influence on the buyers
I question why a large influx of members, since it was made clear long ago that a vote would be made on any decision in relation to sale, were allowed to vote whatever their motives (when this was raised as an issue on the Board itself and no action taken). Yet suggestions from the floor to include the real wider membership in such a critical decision were dismissed out of hand
In fact you might even say, because of the way the Trust are currently operating, that any shares are currently more of an incumbrance than a benefit to our voice and actions.
As said they also trap us in a toxic relationship with partners who demand total control, who have repeatedly shown their untrustworthiness and true attitude towards us and whose aims are in many cases diametrically opposed to our own.
Even (if only) things were going well, their prime aim taking all the profit they can from the club and to sell it to anyone to turn a buck.
Whilst as you say under the deal we bear all the risk of our shares tanking and us being left with massive losses if (as they certainly can under to deal) the new owners force us to sell our shares at whatever price they can get. — Result no shares — virtually no money and a Trust that deliberately gambled our future away. | | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:35 - Dec 14 with 982 views | chad |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:24 - Dec 14 by Uxbridge |
Given the telling off I got from several on here for expressing an opinion, I look forward to the same rules being applied when a board members opinion happens to coincide with theirs.  |
It was a little more than expressing an opinion though wasn't it ;) | | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:44 - Dec 14 with 963 views | swanseajack4eva |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:25 - Dec 14 by chad |
Many thanks to both ECB and Lisa for their open and honest responses. I look forward to the responses of the others in due course, or possibly at tonight's meeting
Lisa re your first paragraph I so agree, if the vote had not been structured to only give those in favour of the deal 2 bites of the cherry then I would have voted to keep all the shares as a second choice. The fact that that option made no hard logical sense, speaks of how poor the deal was.
As I said at the pre vote meeting, to keep the shares we had worked so hard to earn, was the choice of the heart, to take legal action was the vote of the head and our best chance to achieve the aims of the Trust long term, given the impossible situation we had been placed in by the sale, where our shares were pretty much worthless and keeping them added little or nothing to our influence given the track record and primary aims of the new owners.
The deal (which passed all control to the new owners, on when, and by whom, the Trust would be bought out of the club) only made any sense if the share prices rocketed. Even in the event of that very unlikely looking scenario occurring, we gifted the sellers options to buy further large tranches of our shares at the old price so they could make further significant profits off our backs, and in the meantime had to bend totally to their power.
Kowtowing to untrustworthy, profit sucking owners, whilst giving them total control over us, is an horrific bastardisation of the principles the Supporters Trust was set up to retain.
It is our Trust and our shares, if its Board is not fit for purpose and flagrantly flouts its own rules and unilaterally imposes new ones to stop concerned Board members expressing those concerns to the supporters they represent, whilst deliberately excluding the wider supporter base on critical issues — then it changes and it changes now, or it is removed. |
Great post - hopefully the way forward on the share sale will be reviewed and discussed at the meeting tonight when surely the Trust Board will provide an update on their current thinking regarding the share sale, and members will have a chance to comment.
I have hardly ever seen such a biased and one-sided document as we sent to members in the summer by the Trust Board to recommend the share sale. |  | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:51 - Dec 14 with 951 views | Uxbridge |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:35 - Dec 14 by chad |
It was a little more than expressing an opinion though wasn't it ;) |
Nah. And don't bring me into this theory of yours regarding the presentation of the QC guidance. There's plenty of threads on here which cover that back in the summer and Lisa conveniently backed that up.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the same rigour being applied to all sides of the argument. Otherwise it'd be terribly hypocritical. |  |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:52 - Dec 14 with 948 views | swancity |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:24 - Dec 14 by Uxbridge |
Given the telling off I got from several on here for expressing an opinion, I look forward to the same rules being applied when a board members opinion happens to coincide with theirs. |
How about this for a novel idea for you. Next time you express an opinion on such a serious matter that affects our football club, how about you do it with balanced views and well structured comments covering all bases and angles, not forcing your views onto people and going out of your way to do just that. Learn from it. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:01 - Dec 14 with 929 views | Uxbridge |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:52 - Dec 14 by swancity |
How about this for a novel idea for you. Next time you express an opinion on such a serious matter that affects our football club, how about you do it with balanced views and well structured comments covering all bases and angles, not forcing your views onto people and going out of your way to do just that. Learn from it. |
I'm looking forward to you saying the same to Clasey and Lisa. | |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:05 - Dec 14 with 925 views | swancity |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:01 - Dec 14 by Uxbridge |
I'm looking forward to you saying the same to Clasey and Lisa. |
It's most unlikely that will be needed. I'm sure both of them will be standing up for the fans best interests and that alone, and not fannying around in the Directors Box after enjoying three course meals with the very people who have sold our Club down the Swanee. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:11 - Dec 14 with 906 views | Uxbridge |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:05 - Dec 14 by swancity |
It's most unlikely that will be needed. I'm sure both of them will be standing up for the fans best interests and that alone, and not fannying around in the Directors Box after enjoying three course meals with the very people who have sold our Club down the Swanee. |
Ha, thanks for proving my point so well. | |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:13 - Dec 14 with 895 views | Nookiejack |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:31 - Dec 14 by chad |
Thanks Nookie it is ridiculous to think that the deal gives the new owners right to sell us out of our club for pennies if that is all they can get. Heartbreaking
Just to clarify one point:
the heart option for me was keeping all our shares with:
- no partial sellout to the new owners
- no giving up our rights and control of the Trusts future / shares to them
- no kowtowing to their increasing demands
As with Lisa that would have been my second option after legal action.
For me the deal was a non-starter.
There were just so many unacceptable things about it and it so stacked everything up in the new owners favour whilst giving up control of the Trust, being gagged and our recourse to legal action taken away in relation to the serious wrongs committed as part of the sale.
It also left us in a weakened toxic ongoing legal wrangling relationship with the new owners who had clearly proved their view of us with their destructive behaviour from the outset.
I cannot understand why the Trust would recommend that deal except perhaps as Shaky suggested to gamble on the market — or possibly as others suggested concerns of what would come out.
I cannot accept the biased argument presented to the members both in the written communication and at the pre vote meeting, nor the deliberate misrepresentations of Counsel advice to push the deal through. Nor at the very best a totally naive concept of their own influence on the buyers
I question why a large influx of members, since it was made clear long ago that a vote would be made on any decision in relation to sale, were allowed to vote whatever their motives (when this was raised as an issue on the Board itself and no action taken). Yet suggestions from the floor to include the real wider membership in such a critical decision were dismissed out of hand
In fact you might even say, because of the way the Trust are currently operating, that any shares are currently more of an incumbrance than a benefit to our voice and actions.
As said they also trap us in a toxic relationship with partners who demand total control, who have repeatedly shown their untrustworthiness and true attitude towards us and whose aims are in many cases diametrically opposed to our own.
Even (if only) things were going well, their prime aim taking all the profit they can from the club and to sell it to anyone to turn a buck.
Whilst as you say under the deal we bear all the risk of our shares tanking and us being left with massive losses if (as they certainly can under to deal) the new owners force us to sell our shares at whatever price they can get. — Result no shares — virtually no money and a Trust that deliberately gambled our future away. |
Fantastic stuff gain
With the no deal option - you would still would have had to launch legal action - to change back the new articles to the old ones - as all the power is with the Majority Shareholder (i.e. the Yanks) in respect of the new ones.
Under the new articles the Trust's shares are totally illiquid - the Yanks could just sell them to a new owner without ever involving the Trust. Hence the Trust's shares are then worthless.
Also if the Trust tries to sell its shares it has to go to the Yank's first without any reciprocal rights. Very low probability then of anyone ever wanting to buy the Trust's shares separately from the Yanks - as that buyer would then be under the same conditions as the Trust. The Selling Shareholders really did stitch the Trust up here - by changing the articles immediately before the sale. (Yanks probably demanded it).
With the No Deal option you are still running relegation risk and going into a downward spiral putting the £20m at jeopardy - thats why I personally have always argued for the litigation option.
The value of the Trust's shares should have been strategically banked and used at the bottom of the inevitable cycle - to push us back up again. Hopefully the Trust being fully in control of the club - at the next bottom.
How is everyone going to feel if Huw Jenkins/Martin Morgan/Leigh Dinnen or their family members take back full control of the club - at the next bottom - using the proceeds they have received. | | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:18 - Dec 14 with 881 views | ajmcglashan |
All
Just so you are aware, I am unable to attend the forum tonight due to prior commitments and the short notice associated with only being appointed at the start of the week. I can only hope that me coming down to Swansea from London for 3 hours to attend the meeting on Tuesday shows my commitment. I will of course be ensuring I am updated with the discussions that happen tonight. | | | |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:21 - Dec 14 with 869 views | Neath_Jack |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:52 - Dec 14 by swancity |
How about this for a novel idea for you. Next time you express an opinion on such a serious matter that affects our football club, how about you do it with balanced views and well structured comments covering all bases and angles, not forcing your views onto people and going out of your way to do just that. Learn from it. |
You'll be lucky, he's too pig headed and smarmy for that to ever happen.
Said it for nearly two years, he does himself no favours with the tone he replies to people on here, it's got nothing to do with his opinion, it's how he puts it across. But if you chuck a winky smile on the end, it's ok. |  |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:25 - Dec 14 with 864 views | swancity |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:21 - Dec 14 by Neath_Jack |
You'll be lucky, he's too pig headed and smarmy for that to ever happen.
Said it for nearly two years, he does himself no favours with the tone he replies to people on here, it's got nothing to do with his opinion, it's how he puts it across. But if you chuck a winky smile on the end, it's ok. |
Indeed. Comes across as a bit of a prick it must be said. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:48 - Dec 14 with 839 views | Uxbridge |
| Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:21 - Dec 14 by Neath_Jack |
You'll be lucky, he's too pig headed and smarmy for that to ever happen.
Said it for nearly two years, he does himself no favours with the tone he replies to people on here, it's got nothing to do with his opinion, it's how he puts it across. But if you chuck a winky smile on the end, it's ok. |
I love posts like this. All too happy to make personal insults but get incredibly precious when a bit is thrown back in return. It's a tad hypocritical.
I like to think I've shown remarkable restraint at times. If there are times when I've bit back at some rather odious posts and posters, it's generally been called for. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
