| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 21:24 - Jan 5 with 890 views | E20Jack |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 21:04 - Jan 5 by Nookiejack |
Yes totally agree with you E20 - they will change the rules if it suits them.
If you think about it they are now waiting until the AGM - as advised by Supporters Direct.
But they can only wait - if they are going to get rid of the 12 years rule at the AGM - otherwise why not resign now.
This is why I don't trust these people and can understand why they were ignored by the Selling Shareholders after Yanks V1.0.
I still can't get over the Alternative Voting system they introduced at the time of the vote.
What do you think would have happened if the Selling Shareholders had informed them that they were going to sell.
I can't see how you can do business with them. |
And people ask me why I am not a member of the Trust. |  |
|  |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:05 - Jan 5 with 850 views | Nookiejack |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 21:24 - Jan 5 by E20Jack |
And people ask me why I am not a member of the Trust. |
How to lose £15m in one easy lesson.
If anyone of them lost 75% of shareholder value in a Corporate - they would be out of the door straight away. |  | | |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:16 - Jan 5 with 833 views | E20Jack |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:05 - Jan 5 by Nookiejack |
How to lose £15m in one easy lesson.
If anyone of them lost 75% of shareholder value in a Corporate - they would be out of the door straight away. |
The sad thing is, the lesson is ongoing. They just think they know better, but when questioned only reveal themselves to be utterly clueless in almost every facet.
It isn't too late, that is what is frustrating. How can they claim they are not acting in a self serving capacity when the damage is clear to the image of the Trust that is being done with how they are ignoring their own rules etc. | |
| |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:23 - Jan 5 with 824 views | Nookiejack |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:16 - Jan 5 by E20Jack |
The sad thing is, the lesson is ongoing. They just think they know better, but when questioned only reveal themselves to be utterly clueless in almost every facet.
It isn't too late, that is what is frustrating. How can they claim they are not acting in a self serving capacity when the damage is clear to the image of the Trust that is being done with how they are ignoring their own rules etc. |
They never ever wanted to sell and now are facing oblivion.
Their fundamental strategy was wrong. Whether that was because they are clueless or receiving bungs / to close to the selling shareholders.
Rumour has it that Huw Cooze went on holiday with Brain Katzen thats how close they all were (still are).
Then you have the Keith Harris - Steve Hamer - Nigel Hamer Bermuda Triangle.
Yes I can understand why you have not renewed. | | | |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:32 - Jan 5 with 803 views | E20Jack |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:23 - Jan 5 by Nookiejack |
They never ever wanted to sell and now are facing oblivion.
Their fundamental strategy was wrong. Whether that was because they are clueless or receiving bungs / to close to the selling shareholders.
Rumour has it that Huw Cooze went on holiday with Brain Katzen thats how close they all were (still are).
Then you have the Keith Harris - Steve Hamer - Nigel Hamer Bermuda Triangle.
Yes I can understand why you have not renewed. |
Correct.
Their problem from the very first moment was lack of any sort of long term plan, they still don't have one. They laid out original goals and failed to adapt them to the situation, to the point they were no longer fit for purpose but chased those goals anyway like blinkered foals on their first outing.
Selling should have been a priority as soon as they realised the others were selling at all costs. Their remit shouldn't be to have ''as big a stake as possible'' as situations change, and they have changed to a point where having 22% means naff all. The remit should have been to protect the club and its future, then they could be fluid to what that means under that bracket.
Its clear we are rotting, yet what are we going to have to pick up the pieces? £4m odd with whatever scraps they get for the rest of the shares? Barely enough to cover Wilfried Bony's salary for a season.
We needed £20m in the bank and have a real warchest in the future to have a major stake in the club and ensure we NEVER fall into the venture capitalist chain again, employ all the right people into the right positions. What a legacy.
Instead, they bizarrely think that sticking around and being tag alongs will benefit us as we get passed from pillar to post as each owner takes a piece of us away until left with a shell. [Post edited 5 Jan 2018 22:33]
| |
| |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:46 - Jan 5 with 784 views | Nookiejack |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:32 - Jan 5 by E20Jack |
Correct.
Their problem from the very first moment was lack of any sort of long term plan, they still don't have one. They laid out original goals and failed to adapt them to the situation, to the point they were no longer fit for purpose but chased those goals anyway like blinkered foals on their first outing.
Selling should have been a priority as soon as they realised the others were selling at all costs. Their remit shouldn't be to have ''as big a stake as possible'' as situations change, and they have changed to a point where having 22% means naff all. The remit should have been to protect the club and its future, then they could be fluid to what that means under that bracket.
Its clear we are rotting, yet what are we going to have to pick up the pieces? £4m odd with whatever scraps they get for the rest of the shares? Barely enough to cover Wilfried Bony's salary for a season.
We needed £20m in the bank and have a real warchest in the future to have a major stake in the club and ensure we NEVER fall into the venture capitalist chain again, employ all the right people into the right positions. What a legacy.
Instead, they bizarrely think that sticking around and being tag alongs will benefit us as we get passed from pillar to post as each owner takes a piece of us away until left with a shell. [Post edited 5 Jan 2018 22:33]
|
I supported Phil through Yanks v1.0 and remember congratulating him when they withdrew.
But then thought - what next?
You have got to put yourself in the other person's shoes.
The Selling Shareholders were going to sell. Were they then likely to ever again include the Trust in future negotiations?
But that didn't matter because the Trust Board never wanted to sell.
The result was the selling shareholders then sold leaving the Trust Board in a total minority position - with their shares in a total illiquid position.
But even then - Uxbridge was saying he wanted to be goal aligned with the Yanks - sharing in the risks and returns.
Unfortunately for UX he took the risk and it increasingly looks likely £15m has gone down the pan. (Of course if we stay up for next few seasons -he will be proved right as the shares then are likely to be worth more than £21m). Hopefully for him and for the Swansea economy - we stay up | | | |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 09:53 - Jan 6 with 676 views | Uxbridge |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 22:46 - Jan 5 by Nookiejack |
I supported Phil through Yanks v1.0 and remember congratulating him when they withdrew.
But then thought - what next?
You have got to put yourself in the other person's shoes.
The Selling Shareholders were going to sell. Were they then likely to ever again include the Trust in future negotiations?
But that didn't matter because the Trust Board never wanted to sell.
The result was the selling shareholders then sold leaving the Trust Board in a total minority position - with their shares in a total illiquid position.
But even then - Uxbridge was saying he wanted to be goal aligned with the Yanks - sharing in the risks and returns.
Unfortunately for UX he took the risk and it increasingly looks likely £15m has gone down the pan. (Of course if we stay up for next few seasons -he will be proved right as the shares then are likely to be worth more than £21m). Hopefully for him and for the Swansea economy - we stay up |
Ah Nookie. I remember when you were able to look at things objectively. Making it personal does you no credit. Neither does rewriting your own personal history.
Hilarious twisting of my words there. True, I always said we should be goal aligned, and I've never understood why the Americans weren't up front from the start. Both parties should have wanted the same thing, a strong, stable, profitable, debt free football club. I've said the same to anyone who would listen, including Jenkins. Nobody has given me a decent answer. You may disagree on both wanting that, but I think you're wrong. Sadly though, it hasn't always led to the relationship we all want.
You give me far too much credit in dictating events of this summer. I had a vote on the board, and a vote in the ballot, but as for dictating Trust policy it's hilariously misplaced. You'd have had the same say as me if you'd chosen to be involved, or even just ponied up the membership fee.
Good to see you've finally amended your consistent view that the rump shareholding isnt actually worthless if the deal was to go ahead. We finally got there. It'd be worth Pro rata what the Americans stake would be. Could be more, could be less. My comments were merely to correct your inaccuracies there.
Hindsight is great but it ignores the realities around the Trust. It's ideal was always to be involved in the running of the club not to maximise shareholder value. That's what our membership actually wants. They don't see a penny of the money ultimately. That's why talks were critical, and why excluding the Trust until the last minute, and then not properly engaging, put the Trust in an impossible position. You can blame the Trust for that, and give the sellers a free pass, if you want but I think most can see where the true blame for that lies.
Anyway, it'll all be moot soon enough, and the irony is we'll be pushing for going down the same path, in the short term anyway. Interesting times ahead. |  |
| |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:01 - Jan 6 with 665 views | Phil_S |
The Selling Shareholders were going to sell. Were they then likely to ever again include the Trust in future negotiations?
But that didn't matter because the Trust Board never wanted to sell.
See that second line, it's just not true. There is even a letter in the public domain that proves that
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:04 - Jan 6 with 658 views | Uxbridge |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:01 - Jan 6 by Phil_S |
The Selling Shareholders were going to sell. Were they then likely to ever again include the Trust in future negotiations?
But that didn't matter because the Trust Board never wanted to sell.
See that second line, it's just not true. There is even a letter in the public domain that proves that
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Quite. But we're not dealing in facts these days. | |
| |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:10 - Jan 6 with 646 views | Phil_S |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:04 - Jan 6 by Uxbridge |
Quite. But we're not dealing in facts these days. |
Can I put something into the public domain before someone else does
There is a very prominent former shareholder who tells everyone that listens that he was told by the Trust legal representative that the Trust would never sell.
Just want to make it clear that the person who made this statement was not a trust representative, let alone a legal one but someone who lives close(ish) to the trust legal representative and almost shares the first name. The prominent shareholder is clearly easily confused!!
Ironically the person that said it I think is a friend as well of nookie.
Alanis Morisette could not be reached for comment | | | |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:12 - Jan 6 with 641 views | Uxbridge |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:10 - Jan 6 by Phil_S |
Can I put something into the public domain before someone else does
There is a very prominent former shareholder who tells everyone that listens that he was told by the Trust legal representative that the Trust would never sell.
Just want to make it clear that the person who made this statement was not a trust representative, let alone a legal one but someone who lives close(ish) to the trust legal representative and almost shares the first name. The prominent shareholder is clearly easily confused!!
Ironically the person that said it I think is a friend as well of nookie.
Alanis Morisette could not be reached for comment |
I've heard this too | |
| |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:27 - Jan 6 with 624 views | Phil_S |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:12 - Jan 6 by Uxbridge |
I've heard this too |
It''s interesting as its definitely a statement that has been passed around certain corners to be true and therefore a reason why the trust was excluded from the sale. Indeed another prominent shareholder repeated the same thing to myself and Stuart in a meeting. He was immediately corrected.
I do wonder when everyone was sat around that table saying "nobody tell the trust please" how things would have panned out if only someone had said "Let's tell them, it would be far easier if thy were aware and given they represent the fanbase it seems the right thing to put the football club first and centre" | | | |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:39 - Jan 6 with 605 views | Uxbridge |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:27 - Jan 6 by Phil_S |
It''s interesting as its definitely a statement that has been passed around certain corners to be true and therefore a reason why the trust was excluded from the sale. Indeed another prominent shareholder repeated the same thing to myself and Stuart in a meeting. He was immediately corrected.
I do wonder when everyone was sat around that table saying "nobody tell the trust please" how things would have panned out if only someone had said "Let's tell them, it would be far easier if thy were aware and given they represent the fanbase it seems the right thing to put the football club first and centre" |
Given the Trust legal affiliate doesn't tend to drink in Morgans after a match, it's pretty demonstrably inaccurate.
As for that second paragraph, if only eh. This could so easily have been avoided. | |
| |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:42 - Jan 6 with 595 views | Phil_S |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 10:39 - Jan 6 by Uxbridge |
Given the Trust legal affiliate doesn't tend to drink in Morgans after a match, it's pretty demonstrably inaccurate.
As for that second paragraph, if only eh. This could so easily have been avoided. |
Again though dont let facts get in the way of a good fairy tale
History, legacies and reputations destroyed by one poor decision.
 | | | |
| So I tried to find out about the Trust 12 Years... on 11:10 - Jan 6 with 569 views | BarrySwan |
Ron was off the board for several years up to roughly 2014 and therefore has not been on the Trust board for 12 continuous years.
I do find it quite staggering that the rules governing the Trust can just be ignored because it's an inconvenience until rule changes are implemented that absolve the current running of the Trust.
In fact it's quite staggering that concerns such as incorrectly qualified board members can be brushed off with a 'Well the rules are being changed shortly we'll hang on until they are"
How exactly does that work?
You can bet your bottom dollar that the articles of association and rule book are quoted to the letter when it suits in other matters.
If the rules that the Trust are supposed to be bound by say no Board membership after12 continuous years then thats what should happen and I also would question the moral or acutual legality of a Trust board ignoring their own standard constitution because it suits them. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
