| From The Trust 09:59 - Jan 6 with 27666 views | Phil_S |
News from the Trust
Discussions on sale of Trust shares put on hold.
Dear Phil
We have been advised by the majority owners of Swansea City that they intend to put discussions around the sale of some of the Trust's shares to the owners of the club on hold. When informing us of this, the owners of the club cited the ongoing concerns among some Trust and Trust Board members about aspects of the share sale and also the majority owners own desire to concentrate on on-field matters.
As the mandate from Trust members to sell shares was given in July 2017 and there will now be a further delay in fulfilling that mandate, the Trust Board can confirm that a further members’ consultation will take place to ensure the Trust Board is acting on the current views of its membership on how we proceed from this point.
We will provide a further update to members as soon as possible.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team |  | | |  |
| From The Trust on 10:10 - Jan 7 with 2011 views | whoflungdung |
What s brought this on wobbly .
You seem to defending the indefensible .
Just as well I didn't impugn the legal profession
How many of the general fan base are aware of just what drag rights are .
We don't need detailed ,arcane scripts but simple prose iteming exactly wtf is going on
What s your job ? |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:11 - Jan 7 with 2010 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 10:10 - Jan 7 by whoflungdung |
What s brought this on wobbly .
You seem to defending the indefensible .
Just as well I didn't impugn the legal profession
How many of the general fan base are aware of just what drag rights are .
We don't need detailed ,arcane scripts but simple prose iteming exactly wtf is going on
What s your job ? |
Fcuk off you cretin and stop polluting this thread. |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:14 - Jan 7 with 1998 views | wobbly |
| From The Trust on 10:10 - Jan 7 by whoflungdung |
What s brought this on wobbly .
You seem to defending the indefensible .
Just as well I didn't impugn the legal profession
How many of the general fan base are aware of just what drag rights are .
We don't need detailed ,arcane scripts but simple prose iteming exactly wtf is going on
What s your job ? |
You started it! |  | | |
| From The Trust on 10:15 - Jan 7 with 1998 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 10:09 - Jan 7 by MattG |
Not an accountant but isn't that, to some extent at least, dealt with by the Yanks offering (until yesterday, at least) to buy from the Trust at the same price as the original sale? |
I'm not an accountant either, but yes, it is partialy.
And of course had the Trust gone ahead with the old offer they would have waived the right to relitigate the matter at any point in the future.
But as things stand the initial wrong remains unremedied and therefore fully actionable. [Post edited 7 Jan 2018 10:16]
| |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:16 - Jan 7 with 1988 views | whoflungdung |
And fkuck you too you pitiful cretin.
We are not all in awe of your knowledge
If you're that smart and great a fan then why are you not in office at the club steering us through these troubled waters.
Do what I suggest or feck off yourself | |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:20 - Jan 7 with 1965 views | wobbly |
| From The Trust on 10:16 - Jan 7 by whoflungdung |
And fkuck you too you pitiful cretin.
We are not all in awe of your knowledge
If you're that smart and great a fan then why are you not in office at the club steering us through these troubled waters.
Do what I suggest or feck off yourself |
Snigger.
No wonder Darran finds it so easy to get a rise out of you. That took no time at all. | | | |
| From The Trust on 10:21 - Jan 7 with 1955 views | Shaky |
Think I have to take the credit there, Wobbs  | |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:44 - Jan 7 with 1899 views | whoflungdung |
Darren eh | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| From The Trust on 10:44 - Jan 7 with 1900 views | wobbly |
| From The Trust on 10:21 - Jan 7 by Shaky |
Think I have to take the credit there, Wobbs |
Shucks. You might be right... | | | |
| From The Trust on 10:47 - Jan 7 with 1897 views | thornabyswan |
| From The Trust on 09:52 - Jan 7 by Shaky |
WTF does that mean? |
It means to the layman your explanation made very little sense. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 10:49 - Jan 7 with 1891 views | whoflungdung |
Back on topic .Lets have a simple resume of just what has and is going on because I d suggest the vast majority are utterly ignorant of the shenanigans going on ,so off you go Shaky ,me ol mucker, make it simple ... | |
| |
| From The Trust on 11:21 - Jan 7 with 1825 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 10:47 - Jan 7 by thornabyswan |
It means to the layman your explanation made very little sense. |
Thanks.
And apologies to Phil. I found the thread I mentioned earlier.
See:
Build Bridges with Americans/Sell Outs or Respectfully Proceed with Legal Action by TheResurrection 21 Feb 2017 14:50Lets get an idea from us fans in general as to the last 6 months or so. A 6 months that's seen us bought out by the Americans in a deal where the old owners sold their souls and us down the river.
We all know they did their best to keep the Trust away from discussions and tried wilfully to get the Trust to sign a legal document stating the old regime's Shareholders Agreement practically meant nothing.
Since then the Trust have parted company with their Supporters Director and Vice Chairman and have been threatening legal action throughout the whole time, also stating on many an occasion that "this can't go on much longer"
As we are now aware from recent statements the Trust feel they are "building bridges" and getting somewhere with the new regime. Do we think this is the right course of action and to trust the new American owners and the remaining old Directors, bearing in mind all that's gone on?
What do the fans think?
[poll_1654]
This might give you some more answers, starting half way down the page | |
| |
| From The Trust on 11:43 - Jan 7 with 1776 views | monmouth |
| From The Trust on 10:09 - Jan 7 by MattG |
Not an accountant but isn't that, to some extent at least, dealt with by the Yanks offering (until yesterday, at least) to buy from the Trust at the same price as the original sale? |
Did they offer to buy all the shares at the same price? I must have missed that.
Or was it a proportion only, based on conditional criteria. Anyway, water under the bridge now, the offer was unilaterally withdrawn. |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 12:01 - Jan 7 with 1749 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| From The Trust on 11:43 - Jan 7 by monmouth |
Did they offer to buy all the shares at the same price? I must have missed that.
Or was it a proportion only, based on conditional criteria. Anyway, water under the bridge now, the offer was unilaterally withdrawn. |
Yeah, but unlike the others, the Trust isn’t being asked to sign away the voting rights of the shares it doesn’t sell.
Preferable terms to the other shareholders apparently.
What’s not to like? |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 12:09 - Jan 7 with 1739 views | QJumpingJack |
It was easier to do a deal with Tony Petty than this lot. | | | |
| From The Trust on 12:19 - Jan 7 with 1712 views | thornabyswan |
| From The Trust on 12:09 - Jan 7 by QJumpingJack |
It was easier to do a deal with Tony Petty than this lot. |
They will be gone soon enough I think.
My gut feeling is they are passing it onto the next set
of owners.
Could be wishful thinking.
But it seems very odd why they are prepared to gamble on a court case. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 12:22 - Jan 7 with 1705 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 01:12 - Jan 7 by wobbly |
I think this is a bit naive. Which particular warranty do you think the yanks are going to rely on? The sellers sold shares that they had a right to sell. |
The question is why does Huw Jenkins get is lawyer just before the sale to ask the Trust to sign off that there was no Original Shareholders Agreement?
Answer because the Selling Shareholders have given a warranty to the Yanks that there was not one.
If no issue then why does HJ’s lawyer ask for one.
Shaky has previously said he thinks it is a belt and braces approach - that’s what a good lawyer would do.
Believe who you will. Someone might have passed Shaky the documents and he is a lawyer - so maybe that is why he is so confident that the Yanks could not rely on the warranties. If Shaky hasn’t seen the documents then his view is as good as anyones?
Moscow is now saying that Trust will run out of money taking this to court - so someone is uncomfortable on how this could go if it does go to court. Not sure if Moscow is speaking on behalf of the Trust (as there does seem to be concerns here about the cost) or for MM. | | | |
| From The Trust on 12:22 - Jan 7 with 1703 views | QJumpingJack |
Agree.
The Americans will be out soon.
Probably wait until the next TV deal is announced next Feb and then sell onto someone else.
If the Trust attempt to take them to court, they will have long gone. | | | |
| From The Trust on 12:50 - Jan 7 with 1662 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 12:22 - Jan 7 by QJumpingJack |
Agree.
The Americans will be out soon.
Probably wait until the next TV deal is announced next Feb and then sell onto someone else.
If the Trust attempt to take them to court, they will have long gone. |
I think it would be difficult of them to sell - if litigation was underway. | | | |
| From The Trust on 12:55 - Jan 7 with 1651 views | monmouth |
Even more difficult to sell, as we are not going to be party to the next TV deal.
As a championship shitclub, if they manage to sell us, it could only be to a more rapacious asset stripper, if there are any assets to strip. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 12:57 - Jan 7 with 1644 views | thornabyswan |
| From The Trust on 12:55 - Jan 7 by monmouth |
Even more difficult to sell, as we are not going to be party to the next TV deal.
As a championship shitclub, if they manage to sell us, it could only be to a more rapacious asset stripper, if there are any assets to strip. |
Fukcing h ell I was just starting to feel slightly upbeat then as well. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 13:01 - Jan 7 with 1627 views | exiledclaseboy |
| From The Trust on 12:57 - Jan 7 by thornabyswan |
Fukcing h ell I was just starting to feel slightly upbeat then as well. |
Monny will do that to you. He’s not one for holding back.  |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 13:09 - Jan 7 with 1600 views | wobbly |
| From The Trust on 12:22 - Jan 7 by Nookiejack |
The question is why does Huw Jenkins get is lawyer just before the sale to ask the Trust to sign off that there was no Original Shareholders Agreement?
Answer because the Selling Shareholders have given a warranty to the Yanks that there was not one.
If no issue then why does HJ’s lawyer ask for one.
Shaky has previously said he thinks it is a belt and braces approach - that’s what a good lawyer would do.
Believe who you will. Someone might have passed Shaky the documents and he is a lawyer - so maybe that is why he is so confident that the Yanks could not rely on the warranties. If Shaky hasn’t seen the documents then his view is as good as anyones?
Moscow is now saying that Trust will run out of money taking this to court - so someone is uncomfortable on how this could go if it does go to court. Not sure if Moscow is speaking on behalf of the Trust (as there does seem to be concerns here about the cost) or for MM. |
800k is not a lot of money to litigate a case that is as complicated as this. And if you go no win, no fee, then you might not get the best lawyers either. That’s one of the gambles with court cases and why their barrister suggested a deal is the best way to resolve the position.
To your other point, of course the slightly shoddy, hamfiated, last minute attempt to get the trust to waive their rights is a piece of the story when trying to prove unfair prejudice. It makes HJ look bad, it certainly is grist to the mill, and to be honest it makes the solicitor advising the sellers look pretty amateur as well.
And I’m also sure there is a warranty over the existence or otherwise of the SHA in the sale and purchase agreement - that’s relatively standard. But I very much doubt that the Americans could rely on that warranty to indemnify them in full against the sellers if the trust was successful in a unfair prejudice claim. Way too many challenges with direct causation there. Certainly too much of a risk and uncertain to suggest they’ve pulled the deal because they’re not worried about litigation because of it. If it is, well, they’ve got cojones. | | | |
| From The Trust on 13:58 - Jan 7 with 1539 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 13:09 - Jan 7 by wobbly |
800k is not a lot of money to litigate a case that is as complicated as this. And if you go no win, no fee, then you might not get the best lawyers either. That’s one of the gambles with court cases and why their barrister suggested a deal is the best way to resolve the position.
To your other point, of course the slightly shoddy, hamfiated, last minute attempt to get the trust to waive their rights is a piece of the story when trying to prove unfair prejudice. It makes HJ look bad, it certainly is grist to the mill, and to be honest it makes the solicitor advising the sellers look pretty amateur as well.
And I’m also sure there is a warranty over the existence or otherwise of the SHA in the sale and purchase agreement - that’s relatively standard. But I very much doubt that the Americans could rely on that warranty to indemnify them in full against the sellers if the trust was successful in a unfair prejudice claim. Way too many challenges with direct causation there. Certainly too much of a risk and uncertain to suggest they’ve pulled the deal because they’re not worried about litigation because of it. If it is, well, they’ve got cojones. |
The Trust hasn't got anything to lose though has it.
What is the current value of the Trusts's shares? £21m down to sub £5m?
What good is £800k?
Let's see how far the £800k takes the Trust. Who knows how much may be donated locally if the Trust calls publicly and throughout the UK for contributions - through UK Supporters network.
No-one knows how this could play out and the Trust hasn't got anything to lose.
My gut-feeling is that if the Yanks lose - they will sue the Selling Shareholders under the warranty. They will have to pay say £16m for the Trust's shares - probably leaving the Trust with 5% residual stakes, like HJ and MM.
That means they will have to explain to their 27 person consortium why they are paying £16m for shares worth sub £5m? I think they would have no choice to sue however unlikely you think the chance they would have of winning.
The Yanks don't really seem to be at all bothered about the Trust launching legal action - so I can only assume they think they are covered under the warranty. | | | |
| From The Trust on 14:21 - Jan 7 with 1504 views | londonlisa2001 |
| From The Trust on 13:58 - Jan 7 by Nookiejack |
The Trust hasn't got anything to lose though has it.
What is the current value of the Trusts's shares? £21m down to sub £5m?
What good is £800k?
Let's see how far the £800k takes the Trust. Who knows how much may be donated locally if the Trust calls publicly and throughout the UK for contributions - through UK Supporters network.
No-one knows how this could play out and the Trust hasn't got anything to lose.
My gut-feeling is that if the Yanks lose - they will sue the Selling Shareholders under the warranty. They will have to pay say £16m for the Trust's shares - probably leaving the Trust with 5% residual stakes, like HJ and MM.
That means they will have to explain to their 27 person consortium why they are paying £16m for shares worth sub £5m? I think they would have no choice to sue however unlikely you think the chance they would have of winning.
The Yanks don't really seem to be at all bothered about the Trust launching legal action - so I can only assume they think they are covered under the warranty. |
You are surpassing yourself on this thread Nookie, fair play. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
