| Trust members’ forum tonight. 20:00 - Dec 14 with 31133 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 17:07 - Dec 15 with 1808 views | dobjack2 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 15:54 - Dec 15 by vetchonian |
Although unable to attend last nights forum I was disappointed to hear that one of the Trust board made a statement "attacking " the membership. This board member needs to be reminded that he as part of the board are the elected representatives of the Trust's members. As such he is there to represent and be an enabler of the memberships wishes....he sshould he made to publicly apologise for the statement and reminded in fact that the membership are the dog who should wag the tail being the board.
Whilst originally voting in favour of the deal in light of recent revelations ,resignations and the unfolding of the current dismissal case I am not sure the deal should continue as I no longer believe a meaningful working relationship can exist with the club owners. I would ask that an EGM be held ASAP for this to be discussed and a vote taken to poll the members feelings before pen is put to paper.
Copy of the email I sent to the Trust earlier today.....be interesting to see what if any response I receive |
Don’t want to sound like I’m putting you down but anyone Writing on their own is wasting their time.
You need a written requisition signed by at least 10% of the membership from the model rules.
Rule 32b |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:15 - Dec 15 with 1770 views | Bobby_Fischer |
Might be worth contacting Supporters Direct?
Couldn’t we also apply for a copy of The Trust’s rules from them through the Freedom of Information Act?
EDIT:
Would they hold records of board members and their length of service? [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 17:17]
|  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:19 - Dec 15 with 1754 views | dobjack2 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:15 - Dec 15 by Bobby_Fischer |
Might be worth contacting Supporters Direct?
Couldn’t we also apply for a copy of The Trust’s rules from them through the Freedom of Information Act?
EDIT:
Would they hold records of board members and their length of service? [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 17:17]
|
Copy of the model rules on the swanstrust.co.uk website i’d Post a link if I wasn’t so hopeless with this stuff | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:21 - Dec 15 with 1749 views | donkonky |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:01 - Dec 15 by dobjack2 |
I don’t know whether you could use rule 32b of the trust model rules along with a carefully worded requisition to achieve that. What would the consequences of the vote be though?
Possibly that same rule could be used to trigger a vote on a second ballot in relation to the share sale - I don’t know. Similarly don’t know whether the sale could go through with a EGM on the subject outstanding.
Rule 63 could potentially be utilised in conjunction with rule 32b regarding the tail wagging the dog comment but it is only a short lived punishment at best.
Best thing to do is read the rules and organise away from public scrutiny. |
Pretty deflated after leaving that forum last night. There is no chance of the vote going back to the members and in my opinion the only solution is to either accept it as a done deal or a vote of no confidence in the board. There really seems no desire from the Trust board for the fight ahead.
Well done to all those who voiced their concerns, especially the lad who had to endure that inappropriate fckn rant from the board member. In my humble opinion we need a more militant proactive approach towards dealing with the sell outs and the Americans, a vote of no confidence seems the only solution. |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:24 - Dec 15 with 1738 views | Neath_Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:01 - Dec 15 by dobjack2 |
I don’t know whether you could use rule 32b of the trust model rules along with a carefully worded requisition to achieve that. What would the consequences of the vote be though?
Possibly that same rule could be used to trigger a vote on a second ballot in relation to the share sale - I don’t know. Similarly don’t know whether the sale could go through with a EGM on the subject outstanding.
Rule 63 could potentially be utilised in conjunction with rule 32b regarding the tail wagging the dog comment but it is only a short lived punishment at best.
Best thing to do is read the rules and organise away from public scrutiny. |
I suspect it won't matter what rules you try and get them on, they'll just ignore them and say they were about to change those very rules anyway. Same as what they're going to do with the 12 year rule. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:01 - Dec 15 with 1648 views | Wingstandwood |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 08:13 - Dec 15 by ATFV |
That’s a fair summing up of events, dude. But I’ll add one thing: the Viv Williams outburst came just after an animated discussion on Leigh Dineen’s continued presence at the club and on the payroll.
It was confirmed he’s sold his shares and is now being employed as a “consultant”. I queried this as the Americans whole USP was they could fix a failing, underperforming commercial operation that was run by Dineen.
The panel responded by saying a lot of new commercial staff had been employed and Dineen was required to provide expertise and advice such as providing his contacts - I immediately replied by asking if Dineen was supplying contact names one letter at a time as it’s over a year since the takeover!
It was at this point that Viv Williams’ head went and he revealed the contempt that us ordinary members are held in for having an opinion.... |
Welcome to Swansea City Football Club, its just a trough for a bunch of absolute scumbag greedy pigs to feed in.
The sell-out scumbag filth like Dineen, Jenkins, Morgan and Van Zweden still want MORE, at least Petty had the decency to f#ck off.
Any trust official that is happy with the sell-outs continued presence around Liberty Stadium corridors is not fit to be a member. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:15 - Dec 15 with 1608 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:19 - Dec 15 by dobjack2 |
Copy of the model rules on the swanstrust.co.uk website i’d Post a link if I wasn’t so hopeless with this stuff |
Didn't that Uxbridge fella say those aren't the rules they are currently going by? | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:23 - Dec 15 with 1592 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
As a trust member I’m all for giving a vote of no confidence . |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:32 - Dec 15 with 1559 views | swanseajack4eva |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 17:19 - Dec 15 by dobjack2 |
Copy of the model rules on the swanstrust.co.uk website i’d Post a link if I wasn’t so hopeless with this stuff |
Website with link:
The Original Model Rules of the Swansea City Supporters’ Society Limited (Swans Trust) were registered on 4 October 2001.
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-model-rules/ |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:34 - Dec 15 with 1548 views | swanseajack4eva |
Problem is with amendments proposed/supported the Trust secretary is not willing to clarify what rules the Trust board is following. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:41 - Dec 15 with 1520 views | BillyChong |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 09:42 - Dec 15 by Nookiejack |
Given the history of Leigh Dineen as Trust Board member followed by Huw Cooze who allegedly went on holiday with Brian Katzen - you cannot rule out any of the Remaining Board members (including unelected Nigel Hamer) having close relationships with Huw Jenkins/Martin Morgan/Other ex shareholders and the Americans.
The alternative scenario is that the Trust were told about the deal all along and so are legally in a weak position - so are trying to push the deal through - before it all comes out.
A clean break is really needed and they need to stand down and/or be voted off the Board.
No deal should be signed off until at least the AGM. |
I think there’s definitely some private links between some of the trust
Board and the sellouts. Why on earth else would any swans fan be going forward with this? And Viv Williams sounds a complete disgrace. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:52 - Dec 15 with 1495 views | max936 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:15 - Dec 15 by NeathJack |
That's the scrote who grabbed me by the shoulder from behind at the forum where Phil was outlining the offer from the Yanks as he saw me on my phone and told me if i was tweeting the proceedings, to stop.
I didn't stop.
I also haven't been to a meeting since. |
You should have dumped him on his fat arse, jumped up little tw@t.
Get back to the meetings don't let people like him intimidate you or anyone else for that matter.  |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:53 - Dec 15 with 1490 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:15 - Dec 15 by Bobby_Fischer |
Didn't that Uxbridge fella say those aren't the rules they are currently going by? |
That Uxbridge fella said the exact opposite. That's kind of the problem. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:59 - Dec 15 with 1467 views | swanseajack4eva |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:53 - Dec 15 by Uxbridge |
That Uxbridge fella said the exact opposite. That's kind of the problem. |
Hi Ux - please can you explain what you mean? | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:02 - Dec 15 with 1452 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:59 - Dec 15 by swanseajack4eva |
Hi Ux - please can you explain what you mean? |
The model rules in the Trust site are the last that were filed with the FCA so are the ones that apply. Others have been passed at past AGMs but not filed, therefore do not apply. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:04 - Dec 15 with 1437 views | Chippy69 |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 12:15 - Dec 15 by NeathJack |
That's the scrote who grabbed me by the shoulder from behind at the forum where Phil was outlining the offer from the Yanks as he saw me on my phone and told me if i was tweeting the proceedings, to stop.
I didn't stop.
I also haven't been to a meeting since. |
I would have shoved the napper in the c unt |  |
| They make us feel indebted
For saving us from hell
And then they put us through it
It's time the bastards fell
|
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:05 - Dec 15 with 1433 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:02 - Dec 15 by Uxbridge |
The model rules in the Trust site are the last that were filed with the FCA so are the ones that apply. Others have been passed at past AGMs but not filed, therefore do not apply. |
So theses are the ones that apply
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-model-rules/ | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:14 - Dec 15 with 1376 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:12 - Dec 15 by Nookiejack |
The deal they are signing away will mean the Trust will receive £3m (£5m for fist tranche 5% - £2m Stadium reinvestment) for its 21% stake?
The remaining 16% will be sold for a few pence when we get relegated.
£3m for 21% stake
What mugs or they are receiving back handers? |
Who the actual fhcuk thinks this is a good deal?
Why would anyone at the Trust agee to part fund a stadium expansion, especially in the current situation, even more so when the idea is dreamt up by the majority shareholder?
£3m for a 20% shareholding in a C.£100m company? Are they crazy?
What happens when the Americans piss off? What if we are left with a pile of debt? Who will be repsonsible for that when we go down? Are the Trust likely to have to part fund that?
This whole thing stinks. Backhanders? |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:16 - Dec 15 with 1367 views | NeathJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 18:52 - Dec 15 by max936 |
You should have dumped him on his fat arse, jumped up little tw@t.
Get back to the meetings don't let people like him intimidate you or anyone else for that matter. |
Not intimidated in the slightest mate. Certainly wouldn't stop me going to the next one. It fact, it makes me even more determined to get to the next one I can. |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:19 - Dec 15 with 1354 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:16 - Dec 15 by NeathJack |
Not intimidated in the slightest mate. Certainly wouldn't stop me going to the next one. It fact, it makes me even more determined to get to the next one I can. |
Sit by him and tweet it in plain sight. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:28 - Dec 15 with 1325 views | NeathJack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 10:12 - Dec 15 by Nookiejack |
The deal they are signing away will mean the Trust will receive £3m (£5m for fist tranche 5% - £2m Stadium reinvestment) for its 21% stake?
The remaining 16% will be sold for a few pence when we get relegated.
£3m for 21% stake
What mugs or they are receiving back handers? |
Unless I'm missing something here (wouldn't be the first time!), isn't 20% of £5m, £1m rather than £2m? | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:35 - Dec 15 with 1303 views | monmouth |
Now I'm quite an uncomplicated person, some might say simple, but could someone not just have got up, ignored the ChairJerk and the minions denying (Christ on a bike) the vote and just asked for a show of hands on who would now want to revisit the deal.
Doesn't matter if it's 'officially' sanctioned by the Tin Pot Men or their chief weed. Why would anyone want to allow them control? They have proved unworthy of any 'trust' for years, and now they want to administer the coup de grace and think they can do it with impunity. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:39 - Dec 15 with 1287 views | whoflungdung |
" grabbed me by the shoulder from behind" ? Seriously.
Jesus, just wish I could be involved down there . | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 20:11 - Dec 15 with 1238 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 19:28 - Dec 15 by NeathJack |
Unless I'm missing something here (wouldn't be the first time!), isn't 20% of £5m, £1m rather than £2m? |
No it's me who is thick as shite 20% of £5m is £1m - so it is £4m.
My apologies quite worked up about this - as I can see us getting relegated - parachute money being spunked away (or paid offshore to the Yanks in Management Fees) and the remaining 16% (21% - 5%)Trust shares being sold for a pittance.
Trust effectively gets £4m for its 21% stake. The selling shareholders receive £68m!!!! | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 20:28 - Dec 15 with 1182 views | Nookiejack |
So to recap from Lisa's and ECB's post discussion a few weeks back:-
Rule 58 (a) No person can be a member of the Society Board (i..e the elected Board members) who has been a member of the Society Board for 12 consecutive years.
59 (a) Any member of the Society Board who ceases to comply with the criteria set out in these rules is to vacate the office of Society Board member.
........so have all Society Board members who have been a member for 12 consecutive years now vacated office?
Or are they still in breach of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
