| Trust members’ forum tonight. 20:00 - Dec 14 with 31138 views | exiledclaseboy |
Chairman’s opening remarks reproduced below.
Prior to the start of tonight’s Forum. Nigel Hamer, Secretary to the Swans Trust Board announced that current Trust Vice Chairman, Alan Lewis will be taking up the vacant position of Trust Chairman with immediate effect. Alan will also take on the position of Associate Director of the Club previously held by Will Morris.
Alan Lewis then addressed the Members Forum
Tonight’s Forum is as much an opportunity for members to ask questions as it is for us as a Trust Board to update you on recent events. We will open up the floor for questions after providing the update but first I thought it would be helpful to introduce you to those members of the Trust Board who have been able to join us tonight. It is particularly pleasing to welcome some of the new co-opted members who joined the Board earlier this week. There has been criticism that all the Trust Board are not known to members and one of the things we will be implementing shortly is to update the ‘Meet the Trust Board’area of the website with a short profile on each Board Members and a photo.
Just to go back over the events of the last few months; a period which has been something of a turbulent one both for the Trust off the field and the team on the pitch.
We have to start back in the Summer when members who voted in our consultation exercise provided a clear mandate to the Trust Board to pursue the sale of some shares to the majority shareholders on the terms outlined in the consultation pack which was sent to all members. We have to remember that this was the most comprehensive consultation exercise ever carried out by this organisation and yes there was a clear recommendation from the Trust Board but equally the alternative options were comprehensively covered in the documentation sent out to members.
Discussions then started with the majority shareholders legal team on drawing up the detailed paperwork to formalise the whole deal into a share purchase agreement. Progress was initially slow and it was not until October that questions emerged around some of the detailed aspects of the deal. There were a number of clarifications which were required around the wording of various clauses in the draft agreement we were considering. These clauses were still under discussion however and the main focus at that point was around the financial features of the deal. Whilst the gross figures quoted in the consultation exercise were confirmed, details emerged of a payment structure which, whilst in line with that payable to the previous shareholders in 2016, contained further detail which we had been unaware of. The payment structure was not therefore consistent with the figures featured in the consultation documents.
Questions around the payment structure were raised with the majority shareholders who pointed out that it was in line with the original deal with the previous shareholders. The debate around how we should then move forward led to a difference of views amongst the Trust Board with the majority view being that discussions should continue but always on the understanding that if terms could not be brought back in line with the consultation exercise we would go back to our members. Phil Sumbler felt at that point that in view of the information that had already been communicated to our members, he could not lead the Trust down that path. In his view the working relationship with the Majority Shareholders had broken down. Matt Griffiths also resigned for similar reasons.
Whilst disappointed to lose Phil and Matt the rest of the Trust Board agreed that the discussions between the legal teams should continue. As highlighted in our statement to members of 24 November there has been positive progress, with the majority owners being receptive in helping to find an amenable solution to allow the deal to move forward. The concerns around the financial aspects of the deal have been resolved and the payments are now fully in line with the detail provided to members in our consultation documentation
Discussions on the wording of various clauses comprising the proposed Share Holders Agreement have continued between the Legal Teams. One area of discussion has been around the original proposal, contained in the consultation papers, to consider providing 20% of the proceeds of the sale for stadium improvement/expansion. The important element, being set into the agreement is that any decision will be taken by members once detailed proposals have been made available. Other ways in which the proceeds from this sale can be used are governed to some extent by our rules and supporting legislation and this also needs to be covered. Other areas of discussion have been around the ability of the Trust Board as shareholders, to raise concerns around the actions of other shareholders etc. The Trust Board is conscious of its role as a shareholder and Director in the Football Club and its obligations around confidentiality and collective responsibility. At the same time it needs to reserve the right to voice the concerns of its members in an appropriate manner and we want to ensure that is clear in any agreement.
As a Trust Board we would have liked to have had this finalised by now but we have always acknowledged the need to ensure that the final product is in line with the detail provided to members in the Summer. Despite some of the queries that have arisen during this negotiation period, we now feel that we are close to finalising an agreement which will be fully in line with the detail provided in the members consultation documents. We are not quite there yet however and the commitment remains that if the final paperwork does not reflect the detail in the consultation documents then we will consult further with members.
We have another topic of general interest which we would like to update you on but perhaps before I mention that we can pause at this point and open up the floor for questions around what has been said so far.
School’s Enterprise Challenge
For some time now the Swans Trust board has been looking at ways to engage with the younger generation of Swans fans so that they are aware of its origins, purpose and ongoing work. Trust Board Members have been working with the Welsh Joint Examining Committee (WJEC) to develop an optional Enterprise Challenge as part of the Welsh Baccalaureate Qualification for 14-16 year olds. That qualification is a compulsory part of the curriculum for pupils of that age and the Trust’s Challenge would be an option within that. The WJEC have recently approved the Challenge, meaning that youngsters will in the future have the opportunity to come into contact and work with the Trust as part of their everyday studies. Hopefully this will lead to some of them having a greater ongoing involvement in the years to come.
The task now facing the board is to gradually roll out the challenge to schools in order to give pupils the opportunity to participate.
If any member would like further information about the Enterprise Challenge they can contact info@swanstrust.co.uk
Please mark the email for the attention of Sian Davies (Schools in Neath Port Talbot and to the East) or Roger Goodwin (Schools in Swansea and to the West) |  |
| |  |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:51 - Dec 16 with 3419 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:44 - Dec 16 by MoscowJack |
How do you know when my membership expired? |
All membership is for a year ended 31 July. Whether you pay up in August or June it doesn't matter. |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:52 - Dec 16 with 3411 views | Darran |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:24 - Dec 16 by TheResurrection |
Is Phil providing you with Trust membership information ?
Phil? |
Yes he is. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:52 - Dec 16 with 3408 views | Darran |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:47 - Dec 16 by monmouth |
Everyones membership expires on the same date Nick. You don't get an individual year. |
Unbelievable isn’t it?  | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:06 - Dec 16 with 3384 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 11:24 - Dec 16 by TheResurrection |
Is Phil providing you with Trust membership information ?
Phil? |
Even if I wanted to I couldn’t for a multitude of reasons |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:10 - Dec 16 with 3378 views | MoscowJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:06 - Dec 16 by Phil_S |
Even if I wanted to I couldn’t for a multitude of reasons |
I don't care anyway....I'd like to know if I'm a Trust member, or not ;)
I'm hopeful that I'm not. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:11 - Dec 16 with 3371 views | Darran |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:06 - Dec 16 by Phil_S |
Even if I wanted to I couldn’t for a multitude of reasons |
That’s not entirely true you told me a few years ago that memberships end on 31st July every year so stop lying to The Box Office.
Seriously though you couldn’t make some of this shit up. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:16 - Dec 16 with 3364 views | MoscowJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:11 - Dec 16 by Darran |
That’s not entirely true you told me a few years ago that memberships end on 31st July every year so stop lying to The Box Office.
Seriously though you couldn’t make some of this shit up. |
Grow up, Darran. PLEASE. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:22 - Dec 16 with 3344 views | Darran |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:16 - Dec 16 by MoscowJack |
Grow up, Darran. PLEASE. |
I’m an adult I know if I’m a member of the Trust or not. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 13:39 - Dec 16 with 3270 views | chad |
Anyway back to the meeting …
I was only allowed the mic. twice but made it very clear to the meeting that I thought progressing with the deal was a major mistake for the Trust and raised many issues and facts why it should be revisited and now
Presumably with that in mind towards the end of my post meeting discussion with the Trust Chair and Director, another (I think) Trust Board member came up seemingly with the intention to put me straight ;) as to why the deal was a very good deal — it went like this
* We will be (most probably be?) relegated this season and the share price will plummet
* The deal will ensure we get full original sale value on 5% (circa 1/4) of our shares
— big smile
If this was meant to be my eureka moment sorry I was not feeling it
I did point out that I thought that a terrible argument that made no logical sense, when we could have taken legal action (not acting like a doormat, not being dragged into a toxic relationship and not giving up the rights to when/to whom/ for what price we will be sold out of the club) and with a very high probability of getting full original sale value on all our shares rather than ¼ of them; and on the low probability of losing would still have our shares.
Of course as I have always said a strong supporters group could still provide excellent representation regardless of shares.
He pointed out that the buyers would out wait us and we could not afford legal action
I disagree, as they would hate legal action of this nature, it would impact on their reputations and very importantly their ability to sell the club
However I did mention the no win no fee option and was told they did consider that
So how was the deal a better option?
It was conceded more than once (in the meeting and in the above conversation) that the drag clause was the one problem
Well (despite it being far from the only problem) this is like telling the Kennedy’s the bullet was the one problem in their visit to Dallas, but still going ahead with the trip.
It concerns me sorely if that is the type of critical analytical thinking that led to the Board flogging the deal for all they were worth
No offence meant to tail wag the dog man et al — but learn now:
I am the dog as, is every other member and supporter — and there is plenty of dog in us |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:39 - Dec 16 with 3169 views | Lord_Bony |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:03 - Dec 16 by monmouth |
It would be quite helpful if a moderator could simply remove any post (including this one) that is not about the topic at hand, as this is quite an important thread. |
I agree 100% but it can't be done.
They would go crying to Phil like babies. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:50 - Dec 16 with 3136 views | Darran |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:39 - Dec 16 by Lord_Bony |
I agree 100% but it can't be done.
They would go crying to Phil like babies. |
Every post is about the topic. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:00 - Dec 16 with 3118 views | Garyjack |
E20 started it. He did it first because he's childish. |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:03 - Dec 16 with 3104 views | E20Jack |
Not true, as others pointed out.
But I will always finish it. Guaranteed. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:05 - Dec 16 with 3102 views | Garyjack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:03 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
Not true, as others pointed out.
But I will always finish it. Guaranteed. |
Did.  | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:06 - Dec 16 with 3091 views | E20Jack |
 | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:15 - Dec 16 with 3065 views | Garyjack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:06 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
|
Ok, i'm sorry. And apologies to everyone else as well. i was hammered. I'm sure we are all united in the fight for our club. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:16 - Dec 16 with 3045 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:15 - Dec 16 by Garyjack |
Ok, i'm sorry. And apologies to everyone else as well. i was hammered. I'm sure we are all united in the fight for our club. |
Accepted. We move on.  | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:20 - Dec 16 with 3034 views | Darran |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:15 - Dec 16 by Garyjack |
Ok, i'm sorry. And apologies to everyone else as well. i was hammered. I'm sure we are all united in the fight for our club. |
But that’s the problem we aren’t all united. Some are ready to vote on the future (if it happens) and some aren’t because of their principles. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:25 - Dec 16 with 3017 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:20 - Dec 16 by Darran |
But that’s the problem we aren’t all united. Some are ready to vote on the future (if it happens) and some aren’t because of their principles. |
If we get 120 letters sent to the email address I provided then I will join in order to vote.
As I explained yesterday, if there is not enough interest then I am putting my support, money and backing by number behind an organisation I am fundamentally against in its current form.
If you dont agree, good for you. But people are bored of the discussion now I would have though. My mind isnt changed one iota. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:44 - Dec 16 with 2970 views | wobbly |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:25 - Dec 16 by E20Jack |
If we get 120 letters sent to the email address I provided then I will join in order to vote.
As I explained yesterday, if there is not enough interest then I am putting my support, money and backing by number behind an organisation I am fundamentally against in its current form.
If you dont agree, good for you. But people are bored of the discussion now I would have though. My mind isnt changed one iota. |
Your tenner is safe. There is zero chance that 120 letters or emails will get sent. |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:52 - Dec 16 with 2939 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:44 - Dec 16 by wobbly |
Your tenner is safe. There is zero chance that 120 letters or emails will get sent. |
If that is the case then it proves my moral stand point to be correct. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:58 - Dec 16 with 2936 views | Garyjack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 16:44 - Dec 16 by wobbly |
Your tenner is safe. There is zero chance that 120 letters or emails will get sent. |
I wouldn't bet against it. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:41 - Dec 16 with 2809 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 13:39 - Dec 16 by chad |
Anyway back to the meeting …
I was only allowed the mic. twice but made it very clear to the meeting that I thought progressing with the deal was a major mistake for the Trust and raised many issues and facts why it should be revisited and now
Presumably with that in mind towards the end of my post meeting discussion with the Trust Chair and Director, another (I think) Trust Board member came up seemingly with the intention to put me straight ;) as to why the deal was a very good deal — it went like this
* We will be (most probably be?) relegated this season and the share price will plummet
* The deal will ensure we get full original sale value on 5% (circa 1/4) of our shares
— big smile
If this was meant to be my eureka moment sorry I was not feeling it
I did point out that I thought that a terrible argument that made no logical sense, when we could have taken legal action (not acting like a doormat, not being dragged into a toxic relationship and not giving up the rights to when/to whom/ for what price we will be sold out of the club) and with a very high probability of getting full original sale value on all our shares rather than ¼ of them; and on the low probability of losing would still have our shares.
Of course as I have always said a strong supporters group could still provide excellent representation regardless of shares.
He pointed out that the buyers would out wait us and we could not afford legal action
I disagree, as they would hate legal action of this nature, it would impact on their reputations and very importantly their ability to sell the club
However I did mention the no win no fee option and was told they did consider that
So how was the deal a better option?
It was conceded more than once (in the meeting and in the above conversation) that the drag clause was the one problem
Well (despite it being far from the only problem) this is like telling the Kennedy’s the bullet was the one problem in their visit to Dallas, but still going ahead with the trip.
It concerns me sorely if that is the type of critical analytical thinking that led to the Board flogging the deal for all they were worth
No offence meant to tail wag the dog man et al — but learn now:
I am the dog as, is every other member and supporter — and there is plenty of dog in us |
ooof [Post edited 17 Dec 2017 8:22]
|  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:59 - Dec 17 with 2611 views | chad |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:41 - Dec 16 by Bobby_Fischer |
ooof [Post edited 17 Dec 2017 8:22]
|
Ha you must mean Wooof | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 14:13 - Dec 17 with 2533 views | BillyChong |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 00:49 - Dec 16 by Swanseajill |
I'm not really interested in what you think about what I should be doing as a member.
But you have no need to tell others what they should be doing, when you're not a Trust member yourself.
But your constant high horse attitude is once again very wearing. |
Are you able to explain why the trust are so keen on this deal and why they want it done so quickly ? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
