| Trust members’ forum tonight. 20:00 - Dec 14 with 31136 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 21:40 - Dec 14 with 2522 views | bermudajack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:33 - Dec 14 by Swanzay |
Are you not annoyed by that statement for an introductory statement by a new chairman....
ignoring the expansion donor part.
The fact that the Trust agreed to that on Phils watch is even more mind blowing, just who is negotiating and agreeing to this shite!
The Trust is a MESS! |
I believe the terminology used was a potential 20% donation towards the costs - as a gesture of goodwill... or something along those lines...
I believe if I remember correct, Phil stated that this issue would be forwarded to the members should expansion actually materialise...
What’s even more shocking is the high % of Trust members that voted for this option even though this was in black & white 😳😳 |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:52 - Dec 14 with 2465 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:40 - Dec 14 by bermudajack |
I believe the terminology used was a potential 20% donation towards the costs - as a gesture of goodwill... or something along those lines...
I believe if I remember correct, Phil stated that this issue would be forwarded to the members should expansion actually materialise...
What’s even more shocking is the high % of Trust members that voted for this option even though this was in black & white 😳😳 |
A gesture of goodwill, then they have the nerve to try and alter the terms and conditions.
When Jenkins said we needed investment to get to the next level I didn't realise he meant from The Trust. [Post edited 14 Dec 2017 21:57]
|  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:54 - Dec 14 with 2438 views | bonymine |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:07 - Dec 14 by union_jack |
Nigel Davies raised the point that the deal should be pulled but it was denied. Wouldn't even take a show if hands and apparently want to get the whole thing finalised asap.
Something is not right here. There needs to be a vote of no confidence put forward now as I don't believe the Trust are looking after the club;s best interest.
Andrew, shame you weren't there.
I wasn't there either but the SCSA WhatsApp messages have been keeping us informed. |
Yet another stitch up then the whole fiasco has been a total shambles ...as I’ve posted many times before OUR Club is rotten to the core.
RIP Swansea City FC ......it was good while it lasted thanks for the memories over the past 45 years. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:04 - Dec 14 with 2354 views | Landore_Jack |
What a farce. Hardly surprising though. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:09 - Dec 14 with 2309 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:40 - Dec 14 by bermudajack |
I believe the terminology used was a potential 20% donation towards the costs - as a gesture of goodwill... or something along those lines...
I believe if I remember correct, Phil stated that this issue would be forwarded to the members should expansion actually materialise...
What’s even more shocking is the high % of Trust members that voted for this option even though this was in black & white 😳😳 |
Yep - Phil stated further consultation would have to take place in the scenario where the yanks asked the Trust to reinvest part of the proceeds back into the club for stadium expansion.
Even if members were for this - the Trust is going to be left with a 10% holding - after the Yanks settle the first 5%, then another 2,5% for 5 years depending on PL status with an option to buy another 2,5%.
So maximum Trust should ever put back in should be 10% of proceeds.
Don't the Trust Board realise that the Yanks are leveraging the Trust's proceeds to increase the Yank's returns - how naive can these people really be? |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:10 - Dec 14 with 2297 views | Pegojack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:11 - Dec 14 by NeathJack |
If it's anything like the share sale fiasco, it'll fly through any vote if the Trust recommend it.
FFS. |
I'm not so sure, Neathie. I think the members are beginning to wake up to what's going on. I voted for the share sale but I would strongly oppose giving 20% back! I wouldn't give them the steam off my proverbial..... |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:14 - Dec 14 with 2258 views | max936 |
Seems strange that Phil and Matt resigned because of a change in the sale agreement that has now been seemingly resolved, surely there's more to their departure that just needing the thrash out details to get back to the deal that was originally agreed months ago.? |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:16 - Dec 14 with 2239 views | longlostjack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:14 - Dec 14 by bermudajack |
The 20% towards the stadium expansion was on the voting literature in the original vote...
I couldn’t understand why the Trust would agree to this and endorse it back then, it completely baffles me even now...
These yanks aren’t stupid, they’ve made millions by making others pay for improvements to stadiums... (see what they did in the states) make money at all costs... it’s what a hedge fund is all about right?
Need to rid our club of these parasites and ban the sellouts that took their dirty cash and invited them in |
Meant to up arrow. Agree completely. Something smells of 🟠[Post edited 14 Dec 2017 22:18]
|  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:18 - Dec 14 with 2220 views | NeathJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:14 - Dec 14 by max936 |
Seems strange that Phil and Matt resigned because of a change in the sale agreement that has now been seemingly resolved, surely there's more to their departure that just needing the thrash out details to get back to the deal that was originally agreed months ago.? |
Indeed.
What about the other clauses such as the Trust not being able to criticise the club in any way shape or form going forward? |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:29 - Dec 14 with 2175 views | Garyjack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:07 - Dec 14 by union_jack |
Nigel Davies raised the point that the deal should be pulled but it was denied. Wouldn't even take a show if hands and apparently want to get the whole thing finalised asap.
Something is not right here. There needs to be a vote of no confidence put forward now as I don't believe the Trust are looking after the club;s best interest.
Andrew, shame you weren't there.
I wasn't there either but the SCSA WhatsApp messages have been keeping us informed. |
Just to add to this, when they refused a show of hands, one trust board member (believed to have been Viv Williams) accused Nigel (a Trust member) of being the tail that was trying to wag the dog! Really? |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:30 - Dec 14 with 2166 views | NeathJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:29 - Dec 14 by Garyjack |
Just to add to this, when they refused a show of hands, one trust board member (believed to have been Viv Williams) accused Nigel (a Trust member) of being the tail that was trying to wag the dog! Really? |
Jesus. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:37 - Dec 14 with 2118 views | bonymine |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:29 - Dec 14 by Garyjack |
Just to add to this, when they refused a show of hands, one trust board member (believed to have been Viv Williams) accused Nigel (a Trust member) of being the tail that was trying to wag the dog! Really? |
Just a simple question....how many ‘individuals’ are on the payroll of Swansea City these days ?
The tables have finally turned and the TRUTH will finally come out some day soon (yes I am a dreamer) but in truth we just slip further and further into the mire ........ | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:38 - Dec 14 with 2110 views | max936 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:10 - Dec 14 by Pegojack |
I'm not so sure, Neathie. I think the members are beginning to wake up to what's going on. I voted for the share sale but I would strongly oppose giving 20% back! I wouldn't give them the steam off my proverbial..... |
Mike, it goes back to my vastly overstated point that the details of the sale should have been broadcast loud and long from the Roof Tops and the vote would have been a unanimous no to any deal, just why that didn't happen is still a mystery to me at least. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:39 - Dec 14 with 2104 views | exhmrc1 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:30 - Dec 14 by NeathJack |
Jesus. |
He obviously doesn't know him very well. I worked with him and had many arguments but one thing not in doubt is that Nigel is his own man | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:41 - Dec 14 with 2084 views | jasfan |
From what I understood in the meeting it sounded like the deal will be more or less ready for approval in late December or early January. [Post edited 14 Dec 2017 22:43]
| | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:44 - Dec 14 with 2060 views | Swanseajill |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:29 - Dec 14 by Garyjack |
Just to add to this, when they refused a show of hands, one trust board member (believed to have been Viv Williams) accused Nigel (a Trust member) of being the tail that was trying to wag the dog! Really? |
Were you at the meeting Gary?
I was dressed ready to go when a small family crisis arose. If you were there, was there a good attendance? |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:44 - Dec 14 with 2059 views | max936 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:18 - Dec 14 by NeathJack |
Indeed.
What about the other clauses such as the Trust not being able to criticise the club in any way shape or form going forward? |
Its all oneway traffic init, can't understand the love the trust have for the Majority Owners, oh come on now lets not upset them keep smiling now folks, bow and curtsey when we see them. Dear Me ffs. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:46 - Dec 14 with 2036 views | BillyChong |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:07 - Dec 14 by union_jack |
Nigel Davies raised the point that the deal should be pulled but it was denied. Wouldn't even take a show if hands and apparently want to get the whole thing finalised asap.
Something is not right here. There needs to be a vote of no confidence put forward now as I don't believe the Trust are looking after the club;s best interest.
Andrew, shame you weren't there.
I wasn't there either but the SCSA WhatsApp messages have been keeping us informed. |
Totally agree, something isn’t right at all. Are any of the Trust board in any secret handshake clubs with Jenkins and Co? It’s got to be that or back handers. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:47 - Dec 14 with 2035 views | Garyjack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:44 - Dec 14 by Swanseajill |
Were you at the meeting Gary?
I was dressed ready to go when a small family crisis arose. If you were there, was there a good attendance? |
No i wasn't Lor. I was told this by Nigel himself on the SCSA group. Hope everything is ok with the family. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:49 - Dec 14 with 2014 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:41 - Dec 14 by jasfan |
From what I understood in the meeting it sounded like the deal will be more or less ready for approval in late December or early January. [Post edited 14 Dec 2017 22:43]
|
Do you know whether they now have a quorum to get this through before the AGM - with now 4 co-opted members but presumably still Trust Board members who are over the 12 years rule?
Could certain Board members not turn up/give their apologies in respect of the Trust Board meeting where they approve this - to ensure they haven't got a quorum before the AGM. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:52 - Dec 14 with 1986 views | bonymine |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:49 - Dec 14 by Nookiejack |
Do you know whether they now have a quorum to get this through before the AGM - with now 4 co-opted members but presumably still Trust Board members who are over the 12 years rule?
Could certain Board members not turn up/give their apologies in respect of the Trust Board meeting where they approve this - to ensure they haven't got a quorum before the AGM. |
We need to push this through ASAP | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:56 - Dec 14 with 1959 views | londonlisa2001 |
Just for information. I wasn't there tonight. Unfortunately due to the short notice i couldn't rearrange my diary.
I did see the statement in advance and wrote a lengthy reply before the meeting started.
I hope that nothing of note will progress on this until the board meeting in January and have made my views quite clear. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:56 - Dec 14 with 1957 views | jasfan |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:49 - Dec 14 by Nookiejack |
Do you know whether they now have a quorum to get this through before the AGM - with now 4 co-opted members but presumably still Trust Board members who are over the 12 years rule?
Could certain Board members not turn up/give their apologies in respect of the Trust Board meeting where they approve this - to ensure they haven't got a quorum before the AGM. |
I don't sorry.
The mandate given to the Trust Board by the vote was mentioned but the actual process of signing off (if that's the correct phrase) of the final deal wasn't explained. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
