| Trust members’ forum tonight. 20:00 - Dec 14 with 31162 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 21:51 - Dec 15 with 1548 views | BillyChong |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:38 - Dec 15 by Phil_S |
I've been trying to debate all day whether I wish I had been there last night or not. I didn't have a choice as I was in Edinburgh but nonetheless I still cant decide.
Anyway, I've said here if it went back to the vote then I would vote against the deal now. There are two reasons - both cited in the post here.
The payment terms was big for me. There will always be negotiation in a deal but we stressed that negotiations had to cease before we went to any members consultation. That was my belief that would have happened so to need to have them open again after consultation for me was wrong. And that is why I said it was and that we should pull out of the deal. For me it showed a lack of working relationship and similarly a level of contempt that I was not comfortable with.
Matt has referred to the gagging order. Another unacceptable thing for me and the simple fact that it was even suggested made it irrelevant whether it was to be removed or not. Another sign of no working relationship and contempt.
Dimi has made several questions as to why the deal was recommended in the first place (sorry Dimi it is not a case of not wanting to answer you but this week has been the busiest week possible for me) and I do think that was laid out in the original forum address. Whether you agree with it or not that was the collective view of the board. But it was driven by a desire to get a working relationship that shareholders should have. For me that last part didn't happen and that made the first part impossible to continue with a recommendation.
The board member that Spratty referred to will be Ron. He did indeed say that I was premature in leaving but I dont believe that to be the case. As appears to have happened they did get the terms (or so it seems) that was presented but for me the fact that it was ever in doubt was enough to take away any desire to make a deal. You cannot work with people (in my view) that treat you as such (and no doubt may believe that was too late)
I have to say that I am disappointed to read of the comments made at the meeting last night which shouldn't have been said and for what it was worth had I been chairing it I would have taken it to a show of hands. Its not binding but a good way to gauge a real opinion as many will come to listen. Ironically we did the show of hands at the first forum (pre-consultation) so why not.
My view and stance of the position was very clear to the board before my resignation, I am sure that Ux or Matt will happily back that up.
Would I like to see this go back to the members? Yes I think it should even if it didn't overturn the decision, if what I read on here of last night is reflective of the members views then I would absolutely do it. I was always of the belief that forums gave a really good view of the members views, sometimes much more than what you read on here or social media. |
Purely from an outsiders view point the lack of working relationship and level of contempt was surely there from the moment the trust were kept away from the sale to the Americans |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:54 - Dec 15 with 1534 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:51 - Dec 15 by BillyChong |
Purely from an outsiders view point the lack of working relationship and level of contempt was surely there from the moment the trust were kept away from the sale to the Americans |
Exactly.
It is such a ridiulous excuse the mind boggles. So they continue to act as they always have done and were warned they would... si it gets left in the hands of the idiots that want to continue anyway and those that recommended it blame the Americans.
Complete farce. These people should be doing everything possible to reverse THEIR error. That starts by acceptting blame and then doing everything in their power to reverse it. |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:58 - Dec 15 with 1515 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:50 - Dec 15 by E20Jack |
I have said previously, calling me other posters won't stop me asking these questions which is quite obviously your intention, something you did the last time I asked awkward questions. A very odd thing to do for someone who has now apparently changed allegiances on the vote.
You posted on that thread many times after the question was asked and instead preferred to reply to little funny quips completely unpressing to the matter in hand considering its urgency.
I did not ask why the deal was recommended. I asked what YOU believe the positives of this deal are, as you clearly would still be all for this deal had they not attempted to renegotiate. Correct?
You have to remember you played no small part in getting us to the situation we are in with this deal. If you dont expect these questions to be asked or get all defensive about them then the mind boggles as to what you expected. A resignation doesn't negate that fact. You knew they acted this way from the start but decided to gamble with the clubs future anyway, you cannot shift the blame to them.
To understand the other side, which seems to be utterly mental, we have to understand the motives. The motive stated collectively - goes against what the deal offers. It makes no sense with drag right in play. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 21:56]
|
To be frank I couldn't give two f*cks whether you ask awkward questions or not. Because they're not awkward. What I choose to reply to on an Internet forum is entirely up to me so you can remove the paranoia thread.
Would I still be all for the deal had they not decided to re-negotiate? I have no idea to be honest because a whole host of things can change a viewpoint. I have highlighted the final triggers for me, many people who I confided in over several months will know that there are more things that led me towards a decision I eventually made.
You seem intent on looking backwards which is your propagative as replying to what I choose is mine. I know and understand your view, my thoughts were delivered in the various forums we held on the subject. |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:59 - Dec 15 with 1499 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:51 - Dec 15 by BillyChong |
Purely from an outsiders view point the lack of working relationship and level of contempt was surely there from the moment the trust were kept away from the sale to the Americans |
Very possible but when you own 21% of an asset and someone else owns 68% of that the very least you can do is to spend time seeing if you can find a middle ground. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:00 - Dec 15 with 1490 views | chad |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:39 - Dec 15 by PozuelosSideys |
That actually happened and that was actually said?
WTF? Who are these clowns? Do they have any sort of scooby? Im starting to think most of them should be wiped off and the Trust start all over again. |
Most definitely [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 22:00]
|  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:03 - Dec 15 with 1466 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:58 - Dec 15 by Phil_S |
To be frank I couldn't give two f*cks whether you ask awkward questions or not. Because they're not awkward. What I choose to reply to on an Internet forum is entirely up to me so you can remove the paranoia thread.
Would I still be all for the deal had they not decided to re-negotiate? I have no idea to be honest because a whole host of things can change a viewpoint. I have highlighted the final triggers for me, many people who I confided in over several months will know that there are more things that led me towards a decision I eventually made.
You seem intent on looking backwards which is your propagative as replying to what I choose is mine. I know and understand your view, my thoughts were delivered in the various forums we held on the subject. |
Well you should start being a bit more frank then instead of snidey comments from the sidelines. Of course it is up to you what you comment on, but if you have the clubs interests at heart rather than your own then you would be falling over yourself to answer them considering your position formerly and the position you are now apparently holding in the seperate fans group.
I am not intent on looking back at all. Things need to be answered in order to move forward. How can you expect to lead a seperate group against this, when you are the one who brought the situation forward without as much of recognition that you made a masive error.
If you admitted that then we could be frank about the reasoning and motives behind the other side and move on in an accurate direction instead of everybody second guessing why on earth anyone would be for this deal. I am not looking for blame, everyone makes mistakes, I am looking for answers.
Quite a difference. | |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:03 - Dec 15 with 1464 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:00 - Dec 15 by chad |
Most definitely [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 22:00]
|
Oooph. Incoming... |  |
| "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 22:05 - Dec 15 with 1456 views | jasfan |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:59 - Dec 15 by Phil_S |
Very possible but when you own 21% of an asset and someone else owns 68% of that the very least you can do is to spend time seeing if you can find a middle ground. |
Was it the case that had legal action been the eventual route taken, it would have been useful in court to show that the Supporters Trust had at least tried to negotiate with the other party initially, despite the obvious reservations of dealing with a buyer of that nature? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:05 - Dec 15 with 1454 views | swancity |
It seems to be fairly obvious now that too many on the Trust board seem to have good relationships / friendships with the previous owners and that is definitely hampering their thoughts in terms of really putting the fans first. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:07 - Dec 15 with 1436 views | Swanzay |
Chad, I can only echo your concerns and sentiments and well done for further highlighting these issues.
Plus you making Daz look a complete fool in the process.
I totally agree regarding Phil S, the vote was orchestrated on his watch, yet peeps still want him to be leader of a splinter group. I understand with respect that he has connections and experience, but he sadly led us into this mess, that is the elephant in the room!
Nothing personal, but that is reality. |  | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:09 - Dec 15 with 1424 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:03 - Dec 15 by E20Jack |
Well you should start being a bit more frank then instead of snidey comments from the sidelines. Of course it is up to you what you comment on, but if you have the clubs interests at heart rather than your own then you would be falling over yourself to answer them considering your position formerly and the position you are now apparently holding in the seperate fans group.
I am not intent on looking back at all. Things need to be answered in order to move forward. How can you expect to lead a seperate group against this, when you are the one who brought the situation forward without as much of recognition that you made a masive error.
If you admitted that then we could be frank about the reasoning and motives behind the other side and move on in an accurate direction instead of everybody second guessing why on earth anyone would be for this deal. I am not looking for blame, everyone makes mistakes, I am looking for answers.
Quite a difference. |
There are no snidey comments being made, you simply take them as snidey. For the best part of 20 years I have had the clubs interests at heart rather than my own, that much actually isn't in doubt no matter how much you think it is different.
In terms of a position in an independent fans group, I am holding the same position as every other member who chose to be involved. An interested party. in fact many have done more than me to date (this really is a group of people who have some fantastic drive that I wish we could have seen more of over the years)
Did I make an error? The simple fact that I would now make a different decision says that in my head it was an error. Is that enough for you? Or do we need to keep going over the same point time and time again? | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:10 - Dec 15 with 1409 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:07 - Dec 15 by Swanzay |
Chad, I can only echo your concerns and sentiments and well done for further highlighting these issues.
Plus you making Daz look a complete fool in the process.
I totally agree regarding Phil S, the vote was orchestrated on his watch, yet peeps still want him to be leader of a splinter group. I understand with respect that he has connections and experience, but he sadly led us into this mess, that is the elephant in the room!
Nothing personal, but that is reality. |
I've said as much myself. Damaged goods I believe was the phrase that I used at the time. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:10 - Dec 15 with 1404 views | chad |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 21:42 - Dec 15 by Phil_S |
See that bit in bold. Was that the actual statement, no other context behind it at all? |
Only in the context I already outline in the post
I can see it now, he sort of half smiled as he said it.
I got the impression of well you are complaining about who joins, well so are we - of course he did not say that that is only my view of the way it was put over
Both were very polite to me even though I felt I might as well be knocking my head against a brick wall. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:13 - Dec 15 with 1384 views | monmouth |
I see that the new chair has put up his pen picture.
/about/CreepyClown-58adabee3df78c345bb07fb2.jpg)
Actually t'aint funny is it. The behaviour is bizarre now. If they push this through now, I feel sorry for them. They could be finished in Swansea and remembered forever as the people that destroyed the supporters trust. Eminently possible. There'll be no hiding behind the vote after Phil and Matt's resignations and comments above.
So.....do you feel lucky punk....well do you? |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:14 - Dec 15 with 1374 views | Dr_Winston |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:05 - Dec 15 by jasfan |
Was it the case that had legal action been the eventual route taken, it would have been useful in court to show that the Supporters Trust had at least tried to negotiate with the other party initially, despite the obvious reservations of dealing with a buyer of that nature? |
Certainly wouldn't hurt.
Legal action was always the last resort for me. If a deal that suited all parties could be done then that was preferable. Seems fairly obvious now that won't happen so taking it to court should be back on the table. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:16 - Dec 15 with 1360 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:09 - Dec 15 by Phil_S |
There are no snidey comments being made, you simply take them as snidey. For the best part of 20 years I have had the clubs interests at heart rather than my own, that much actually isn't in doubt no matter how much you think it is different.
In terms of a position in an independent fans group, I am holding the same position as every other member who chose to be involved. An interested party. in fact many have done more than me to date (this really is a group of people who have some fantastic drive that I wish we could have seen more of over the years)
Did I make an error? The simple fact that I would now make a different decision says that in my head it was an error. Is that enough for you? Or do we need to keep going over the same point time and time again? |
There are quite clearly snidey comments Phil. I don't doubt you have had the clubs best interests at heart, told you privately and said it on here. But this deal you brought into place clearly is a bone of contention for you where you would rather blame others than accept it was the mistake of the recommendation.
In my opinion the second you take that on the chin is the second the gloves can come off, barriers can come down and you can bend over backwards to get that changed. I think you are absolutely the best person to lead the counter to this, no question in my mind - under the caveat that the above happens of course.
The people that read your resignation letter can be forgiven in thinking that you only dont think it is a good deal due to:-
a) The working relationship breaking down (which can be refuted by current board)
b) The terms changing. (which also can be refuted)
So if as you say now you would NOT be for this deal even if they had not renogotiated, then we need to delve into that and it would be of great help if you could make some kind of statement to the membership that hold you in high regard (and are probably still under the influence of your initial recommendation) that the deal IN ITSELF is damaging to the club. We can work with that and make that the drive behind the counter.
You have made it clear you hold my opinion in little regard. But this, for me, would be your greatest legacy to this club.
It is not too late. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 22:20]
| |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:20 - Dec 15 with 1333 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:10 - Dec 15 by chad |
Only in the context I already outline in the post
I can see it now, he sort of half smiled as he said it.
I got the impression of well you are complaining about who joins, well so are we - of course he did not say that that is only my view of the way it was put over
Both were very polite to me even though I felt I might as well be knocking my head against a brick wall. |
I'm not sure I have words. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:27 - Dec 15 with 1282 views | Darran |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:07 - Dec 15 by Swanzay |
Chad, I can only echo your concerns and sentiments and well done for further highlighting these issues.
Plus you making Daz look a complete fool in the process.
I totally agree regarding Phil S, the vote was orchestrated on his watch, yet peeps still want him to be leader of a splinter group. I understand with respect that he has connections and experience, but he sadly led us into this mess, that is the elephant in the room!
Nothing personal, but that is reality. |
Me? |  |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:27 - Dec 15 with 1279 views | chad |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:20 - Dec 15 by Phil_S |
I'm not sure I have words. |
No I didn't either - unusually
I think it actually just spoke for itself, better than I ever could | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:27 - Dec 15 with 1277 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:03 - Dec 15 by E20Jack |
Well you should start being a bit more frank then instead of snidey comments from the sidelines. Of course it is up to you what you comment on, but if you have the clubs interests at heart rather than your own then you would be falling over yourself to answer them considering your position formerly and the position you are now apparently holding in the seperate fans group.
I am not intent on looking back at all. Things need to be answered in order to move forward. How can you expect to lead a seperate group against this, when you are the one who brought the situation forward without as much of recognition that you made a masive error.
If you admitted that then we could be frank about the reasoning and motives behind the other side and move on in an accurate direction instead of everybody second guessing why on earth anyone would be for this deal. I am not looking for blame, everyone makes mistakes, I am looking for answers.
Quite a difference. |
I think Phil's and Uxbridge's recommendation was based on a medium term play - if we had stayed up for 5 years - then Trust would have received £5m, £2.5m (over 5 years) plus the Yanks likely to have then bought remaining 2.5% stake. Yanks then would have flipped the club, dragged the Trust - so the Trust may have received more than £21m in total - as remaining 11% stake would have increased in value - as TV rights increased.
What they didn't do is think about likelihood of immediate relegation - we have been in decline last few seasons - whilst at same time selling off all our goals (Siggy and Llorente).
We therefore don't get to 5 years - very high chance of relegation and only receiving £5m in downward slide and the drag rights being conceded - resulting in remaining 16% stake being sold for nothing.
The Yanks have provided the Trust with an Open goal in trying to re-open the negotiations after the members consultation. Hence Trust could call everything off and take legal action.
Yet the Trust Board proceed with the deal? | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:28 - Dec 15 with 1274 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:16 - Dec 15 by E20Jack |
There are quite clearly snidey comments Phil. I don't doubt you have had the clubs best interests at heart, told you privately and said it on here. But this deal you brought into place clearly is a bone of contention for you where you would rather blame others than accept it was the mistake of the recommendation.
In my opinion the second you take that on the chin is the second the gloves can come off, barriers can come down and you can bend over backwards to get that changed. I think you are absolutely the best person to lead the counter to this, no question in my mind - under the caveat that the above happens of course.
The people that read your resignation letter can be forgiven in thinking that you only dont think it is a good deal due to:-
a) The working relationship breaking down (which can be refuted by current board)
b) The terms changing. (which also can be refuted)
So if as you say now you would NOT be for this deal even if they had not renogotiated, then we need to delve into that and it would be of great help if you could make some kind of statement to the membership that hold you in high regard (and are probably still under the influence of your initial recommendation) that the deal IN ITSELF is damaging to the club. We can work with that and make that the drive behind the counter.
You have made it clear you hold my opinion in little regard. But this, for me, would be your greatest legacy to this club.
It is not too late. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 22:20]
|
Im not blaming anyone else. I stood in front of members and recommended a deal that eventually I decided I couldn't recommend. I changed my mind and believe that the deal I recommended is now wrong. How many times I can say that I am not sure
In my resignation letter I highlighted the points that were relevant. There were other reasons that posters on here can tell you that I discussed with them in private. The fact it was in private tells you much as to whether I am prepared to share the content. Some of the sharing was done as a sounding board as well, some will tell you they saw my resignation coming months ago.
I could highlight many things that added to my frustration but I'm sorry I wont be doing that. Because each of them in isolation are relatively small (and, pardon the pun, petty) but when I think back to them they all led to the key part that the trust will only ever be fed scraps from the top table when it suits to do so. Ergo no working relationship. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:28 - Dec 15 with 1266 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:27 - Dec 15 by chad |
No I didn't either - unusually
I think it actually just spoke for itself, better than I ever could |
And this was Stuart that said this? | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:35 - Dec 15 with 1207 views | E20Jack |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:28 - Dec 15 by Phil_S |
Im not blaming anyone else. I stood in front of members and recommended a deal that eventually I decided I couldn't recommend. I changed my mind and believe that the deal I recommended is now wrong. How many times I can say that I am not sure
In my resignation letter I highlighted the points that were relevant. There were other reasons that posters on here can tell you that I discussed with them in private. The fact it was in private tells you much as to whether I am prepared to share the content. Some of the sharing was done as a sounding board as well, some will tell you they saw my resignation coming months ago.
I could highlight many things that added to my frustration but I'm sorry I wont be doing that. Because each of them in isolation are relatively small (and, pardon the pun, petty) but when I think back to them they all led to the key part that the trust will only ever be fed scraps from the top table when it suits to do so. Ergo no working relationship. |
Fair enough, that is the first time I have seen you say that you changed your mind on what was recommended, and was not changed for you by other peoples actions. Again there is a massive difference. So that is the end of that as far as I am concerned you may be pleased to hear and thank you for that.
Now as I told you in private and will happily say on here. You have the ear and the trust of the membership regardless of resignation, if you truly think this was a grave error then I firmly beieve it is still in your power to correct that.
There is only so much you can do of course, but if you can covey what you just conveyed in that post in a statement release (''the key part that the trust will only ever be fed scraps from the top table when it suits to do so'') then this could make a huge difference if this was to go to a re-vote.
Twitter drive, article on here, facebook, word of mouth. By the time a new vote comes around your word could be the tipping point... as I believe it was initially.
Even if we took it to court and the case failed. We would have fought for the club, we would have adhered to what the organisation was there for and we can hold our heads high as supporters. The alternative is just delaying that foregone conclusion anyway. [Post edited 15 Dec 2017 22:38]
| |
| |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:35 - Dec 15 with 1207 views | Swanzay |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:10 - Dec 15 by Phil_S |
I've said as much myself. Damaged goods I believe was the phrase that I used at the time. |
No disrespect meant, you have done fantastic work previously over the years (total respect), but I have to ask wtf were you thinking that the sale would benefit the Trust in any way?
Were the no alarm bells ringing in your head with regard to the initial deal?
The sad thing is that whilst the trust are making a complete mess of everything the real culprits of this fiasco must be laughing their asses off as to how subservient the Trust are.
HJ, MM must be raising a glass to Alan Lewis and Viv and the ability of the Trust to do feck continuously and bend over. | | | |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:41 - Dec 15 with 1163 views | Phil_S |
| Trust members’ forum tonight. on 22:35 - Dec 15 by Swanzay |
No disrespect meant, you have done fantastic work previously over the years (total respect), but I have to ask wtf were you thinking that the sale would benefit the Trust in any way?
Were the no alarm bells ringing in your head with regard to the initial deal?
The sad thing is that whilst the trust are making a complete mess of everything the real culprits of this fiasco must be laughing their asses off as to how subservient the Trust are.
HJ, MM must be raising a glass to Alan Lewis and Viv and the ability of the Trust to do feck continuously and bend over. |
I'm not taking it as an insult - you'll be amazed how less personally I take criticism these days, time off has done wonders for my mental state!
I did say at (I think) both forums that the deal was not a good one but we believed it was the best one that we could get without taking legal action.
The Americans liked to refer to us getting the same deal as the other shareholders (a comment that I think was made in the forum address last night) however we know that not to be true because they were not given the tight terms that the trust were (although I also know now what a shit deal that they negotiated for themselves in their haste to sell before anyone found out, unfortunately I cant give more detail than that without opening myself up legally :( )
From what I read last night probably couldn't have gone worse and I do firmly believe that this vote should go back to the members before completion even if the decision doesn't get reversed as a result | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
