| Stadium deal agreed 10:01 - Feb 17 with 64191 views | Dr_Winston |
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| 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. |
| |  |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:34 - Feb 19 with 2252 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:50 - Feb 19 by londonlisa2001 |
The Trust is entitled to comment back to the main board and vote.
It may be neither here nor there, as it can be outvoted but it should in my view, then make the position clear to members which would or could inform future actions. |
Is that right?
To be clear, does that mean that the SD is authorised to circulate board papers back to the Trust board for discussion in advance of the main board meeting?
And BTW I don't mean to be rude but can you just confirm my understanding that your position as affiliate is unpaid? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:38 - Feb 19 with 2241 views | monmouth |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:54 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
My biggest two fears here are:
1. If the case was that rock solid, the Trust wouldn't have run away from that fight, no matter how weak they actually are.
2. The Yanks love courts - they will spend fortunes on the large heavy-hitting US firms. They will drag it out for as long as they want, adding to the cost and the odds would probably be in their favour too (possibly just down to the quality of the legal team).
3. Cost - if the Trust lose, their piggy bank, with not too far from ÂŁ1m in it, would be emptied. |
Personal view
1. It's never rock solid in law, and oh yes they would have run away, there was never any serious intention to pursue if they could chew on the Yankee bone. Ten times out of ten. They did, to build bridges whlst being laughed at.
2. It will not be tried in an American razzamatazz court but under british company law. The law is the law and facts are facts. The judge will interpret those facts.
3. Who cares, it's now or never and all or nothing. Back to point two, if they can't afford it hey should have said so by now, but it really doesn't matter if it takes every penny of that war chest.
4. If your fears hold water the legal option should never have actually been an option.
As I say, personal view. Non legal. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:48 - Feb 19 with 2203 views | E20Jack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:38 - Feb 19 by monmouth |
Personal view
1. It's never rock solid in law, and oh yes they would have run away, there was never any serious intention to pursue if they could chew on the Yankee bone. Ten times out of ten. They did, to build bridges whlst being laughed at.
2. It will not be tried in an American razzamatazz court but under british company law. The law is the law and facts are facts. The judge will interpret those facts.
3. Who cares, it's now or never and all or nothing. Back to point two, if they can't afford it hey should have said so by now, but it really doesn't matter if it takes every penny of that war chest.
4. If your fears hold water the legal option should never have actually been an option.
As I say, personal view. Non legal. |
Yes the money is there for instances such as this.
A bit like an excellent footballer not wanting to play with his football boots incase they get dirty. The other option is they sit there doing nothing and the brief of the purchase not fulfilled.
Helps nobody other than the opposition. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:54 - Feb 19 with 2182 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:34 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
Is that right?
To be clear, does that mean that the SD is authorised to circulate board papers back to the Trust board for discussion in advance of the main board meeting?
And BTW I don't mean to be rude but can you just confirm my understanding that your position as affiliate is unpaid? |
Yes, the supporters Director can vote in board meetings.
Board papers are not circulated nor would I expect them to be. I imagine if he wants the view of a wider group on a specific matter (for example the finance sub committee) this is authorised. Whether specifically or generally, I don't know.
Yes, it's completely unpaid. As are all Trust bods. It takes up a fair bit of time as it happens, but it is what it is. |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:56 - Feb 19 with 2174 views | Darran |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:34 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
Is that right?
To be clear, does that mean that the SD is authorised to circulate board papers back to the Trust board for discussion in advance of the main board meeting?
And BTW I don't mean to be rude but can you just confirm my understanding that your position as affiliate is unpaid? |
She doesn’t get paid just gets to sit in the Directors Box. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:04 - Feb 19 with 2159 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:54 - Feb 19 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes, the supporters Director can vote in board meetings.
Board papers are not circulated nor would I expect them to be. I imagine if he wants the view of a wider group on a specific matter (for example the finance sub committee) this is authorised. Whether specifically or generally, I don't know.
Yes, it's completely unpaid. As are all Trust bods. It takes up a fair bit of time as it happens, but it is what it is. |
No of course the SD can vote, but that wasn't what you suggested initially.
As for the uncertainty in what he can and can't discuss with the Trust board or subsets thereof that is just plain sloppy. Or amateurish if you prefer. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:07 - Feb 19 with 2148 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:04 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
No of course the SD can vote, but that wasn't what you suggested initially.
As for the uncertainty in what he can and can't discuss with the Trust board or subsets thereof that is just plain sloppy. Or amateurish if you prefer. |
. . .and the typical short leadtime between circulation of board papers in your average smaller company and the time of the actual board meeting make any sort of consultation highly impractical anyway. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:33 - Feb 19 with 2074 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:23 - Feb 19 by Joe_bradshaw |
I have to say Shaky makes sense to me there.
The Trust shout stuff from the rooftops and stamp their feet as hard as they like and Kaplan and Levein continue to ignore them because they can. Make a fuss, make a fuss, make a fuss. It's as effective as a five year old in a supermarket because he's not getting any smarties.
Just get the process of legal action started today and at least do something that might make a difference. Send the consultation papers out and get the vote process underway. |
Hang on, do they?
.
Because my experience is they do nothing of the sort and Shaky is just being a bit of a smug know it all.
And maybe he could answer this, if the Trust weren't getting satisfactory responses from the Americans why couldn't it go straight to the Council and play holy hell there? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:36 - Feb 19 with 2061 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:39 - Feb 19 by londonlisa2001 |
Some of what you say I agree with, particularly the bit about the primary objectives here and the reality of the situation.
But other bits are a simplification.
There are obligations in place for the provision of information that need to be met.
The Trust are a substantial shareholder (as you say, a minority and without the ability to outvote the majority or prevent them from doing anything) and a representative is a board director. The majority can't do whatever they want - firstly they can't reduce the rights of the Trust without it being a unfair prejudice, and secondly, they can't ignore company law.
However, if proper notices are given, they can, as you say, overrule the Trust on anything. But that doesn't mean that in this case, the Trust could not have made clear any objections it may have, alternatively reassure fans that all seems fine. In this specific incidence, there was also a possibility of any fundamental concern being a genuine issue for the owners, as the other side to the deal was the Council which is elected by the Swansea public, and, as such, could have been put under considerable pressure if the deal would benefit a bunch of American investors at the expense of the people of Swansea.
I believe a review is useful, since it will indicate the public position the Trust might take. And the more the public are aware of any issues that may or may not exist, the more likely a considered result to any future vote which may take place. |
You'd already said what I was thinking | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:40 - Feb 19 with 2044 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:33 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
Hang on, do they?
.
Because my experience is they do nothing of the sort and Shaky is just being a bit of a smug know it all.
And maybe he could answer this, if the Trust weren't getting satisfactory responses from the Americans why couldn't it go straight to the Council and play holy hell there? |
Because the council have entered into a binding long term lease agreement with the club.
And the Trust has no standing to litigate because they are not a party to the lease agreement.
Of course they could kick up a massive stink and throw a tantrum. Let me know if you think that is a better use of the Trust's time, energy and resources than pursuing the Unfair Prejudice claim, and I'll respond further. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:44 - Feb 19 with 2029 views | Uxbridge |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:08 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
Ux,
The fact that you were away should have made Lisa's involvement all the more essential, surely?
Also, I don't get this "we didn't have time" thing. The outline of an agreement was announced a long time ago and the Trust should have insisted on having more detail before the club signed off on it.
If that feeling was expressed to the owners but they refused to comply, surely the Trust should be shouting this from the rooftops, instead of relying on people like us on this forum to guess wildly.
It's just so messed up in so many ways that it surely can't be by accident. It's either incompetence or negligence.
Re. the Boardroom - you of all people should know that everyone's different and MAYBE some fresh blood would enjoy the challenge of networking that room.
Not attending the Boardroom pre/post-match just makes life easier for the Yanks and makes the Trust even more forgettable. People are less likely to screw over someone they see weekly, although that didn't stop HJ, the Yanks and Trust all screwing Huw Cooze over, did it? Even so, I'd pay money to see someone like Lisa work that room.
I can totally understand why it wouldn't suit you and might even go as far as to say that it might be out of your comfort zone (your skills are FAR better used in other areas), but there are people who would love the challenge not of just making the owners/Board feel uncomfortable but "politically" work the room to his/her advantage. It's not easy, but it's done day-in, day-out all around the world every day.
Saying that your preference is to have nobody attending sort of sums up the Trust at the moment - preferring to walk away and take the easy option rather than stand their ground and take the argument to the opposition.
I would like to think that there would be a queue of angry or frustrated Trust Board members wanting the chance to make life uncomfortable for the Board, in a professional manner of course. Hiding or running away is the last thing I would have expected.
For me, this latest mess shows how "unreactive" the Trust are at even being reactive. They should have been on the front foot to avoid this completing without their knowledge but once it's been announced, why the silence? WHY? Who does silence suit?
It surely doesn't suit the fans and it won't suit the club if there are some horrendous clauses within that agreement that could quite possible be a huge financial risk should the worst happen in the future. Again, it's a wild guess, but that's all we've got at the moment!
The Trust seems to be getting weaker by the day! |
It's hardly out of my comfort zone Nick. I've spent the last two weeks dealing with far higher paid and powered execs than Pearlman and Jenkins. The Trust being in the boardroom is a double edged sword though, particularly in the eyes of our members (and we have to remember a lot of this is perception as much as anything) , plus I've never understood why anyone enjoys it in there.
As for the lease, there's a million miles between visibility of the high levels and the detail. In fact, with such things, the detail is everything. That's the issue here. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:47 - Feb 19 with 2016 views | longlostjack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:33 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
Hang on, do they?
.
Because my experience is they do nothing of the sort and Shaky is just being a bit of a smug know it all.
And maybe he could answer this, if the Trust weren't getting satisfactory responses from the Americans why couldn't it go straight to the Council and play holy hell there? |
Good question. Have the council put in protections or caveats or whatever they're called, into the agreement or have they been blinded by the cash? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:48 - Feb 19 with 2010 views | swancity |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:44 - Feb 19 by Uxbridge |
It's hardly out of my comfort zone Nick. I've spent the last two weeks dealing with far higher paid and powered execs than Pearlman and Jenkins. The Trust being in the boardroom is a double edged sword though, particularly in the eyes of our members (and we have to remember a lot of this is perception as much as anything) , plus I've never understood why anyone enjoys it in there.
As for the lease, there's a million miles between visibility of the high levels and the detail. In fact, with such things, the detail is everything. That's the issue here. |
Give it a rest you boring tool | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:50 - Feb 19 with 2001 views | Flashberryjack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:47 - Feb 19 by longlostjack |
Good question. Have the council put in protections or caveats or whatever they're called, into the agreement or have they been blinded by the cash? |
Everyone gets blinded by cash......fact |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:55 - Feb 19 with 1990 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:44 - Feb 19 by Uxbridge |
It's hardly out of my comfort zone Nick. I've spent the last two weeks dealing with far higher paid and powered execs than Pearlman and Jenkins. The Trust being in the boardroom is a double edged sword though, particularly in the eyes of our members (and we have to remember a lot of this is perception as much as anything) , plus I've never understood why anyone enjoys it in there.
As for the lease, there's a million miles between visibility of the high levels and the detail. In fact, with such things, the detail is everything. That's the issue here. |
Sorry, didn't mean to offend. Apologies if I did in any way. I just didn't see you as a networker working a room. Sorry.
I agree that the devil's in the detail and, in nearly all of the lease agreements that I've been involved, the moment I thought I had my head around it an expert teared it to threads.
That's why the Trust should be extremely worried. We have no idea what the Yanks have signed off on. It could be horrendous, or could be absolutely wonderful....we have no idea.
The fact that the Trust doesn't have this info (or do just a couple of Trust people have it) is embarrassing and infuriating. The Yanks bought DC United, added a fancy new stadium and lead them to the heights of bottom of the table. Maybe they haven't finished with us yet....we're still not bottom!
I know I've been over-reacting a bit but the stance of the Yanks (completely ignoring the Trust...again!) and the lack of reaction from the Trust (which is an insult to the fans) has p!ssed me right off.
The stadium isn't a little deal with a local vending machine company or suchlike....it's the bloody stadium we play in!!! | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:56 - Feb 19 with 1981 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:50 - Feb 19 by Flashberryjack |
Everyone gets blinded by cash......fact |
Well, no, that's just a cliche.
As for the issue of the Council's role, could they have been outsmarted or - heaven forfend - even been on the take to get a deal favourable to Kaplan through?
Sure, but legally they owe a duty of care to the residents. Hopefully they take that responsibility seriously and if they don't there are more effective and appropriate avenues of complaint than the Trust. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:58 - Feb 19 with 1972 views | plasjack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:50 - Feb 19 by Flashberryjack |
Everyone gets blinded by cash......fact |
Makes the world go round, without it it's back to the flintstones. |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:58 - Feb 19 with 1971 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:40 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
Because the council have entered into a binding long term lease agreement with the club.
And the Trust has no standing to litigate because they are not a party to the lease agreement.
Of course they could kick up a massive stink and throw a tantrum. Let me know if you think that is a better use of the Trust's time, energy and resources than pursuing the Unfair Prejudice claim, and I'll respond further. |
Well they hadn't until a few days ago had they and the last thing they would've wanted responsibility for is crippling the City's football club.
If you're going to chip in try and be a bit more all rounded and less dismissive.
If the Trust do end up paying for your services you need to up your game., | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:59 - Feb 19 with 1960 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:16 - Feb 19 by Bobby_Fischer |
I agree, shes the only once of intellgence near the thing. The rest are ex teachers or civil servants |
That’s the third passive aggressive insult in about half a page. You ray of sunshine.  |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:02 - Feb 19 with 1938 views | Uxbridge |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:55 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
Sorry, didn't mean to offend. Apologies if I did in any way. I just didn't see you as a networker working a room. Sorry.
I agree that the devil's in the detail and, in nearly all of the lease agreements that I've been involved, the moment I thought I had my head around it an expert teared it to threads.
That's why the Trust should be extremely worried. We have no idea what the Yanks have signed off on. It could be horrendous, or could be absolutely wonderful....we have no idea.
The fact that the Trust doesn't have this info (or do just a couple of Trust people have it) is embarrassing and infuriating. The Yanks bought DC United, added a fancy new stadium and lead them to the heights of bottom of the table. Maybe they haven't finished with us yet....we're still not bottom!
I know I've been over-reacting a bit but the stance of the Yanks (completely ignoring the Trust...again!) and the lack of reaction from the Trust (which is an insult to the fans) has p!ssed me right off.
The stadium isn't a little deal with a local vending machine company or suchlike....it's the bloody stadium we play in!!! |
No offence taken in the slightest. And I understand the concern. I'd say it's p1ssed me off but to be honest it's only cemented things in my mind. There's only one path from here. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:06 - Feb 19 with 1915 views | Loyal |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:50 - Feb 19 by Lord_Bony |
So the Trust had no idea a major lease agreement was being drawn up without them being consulted?
Does anyone know what the purpose of the Trust is these days?
I mean what do they actually do? |
Im pretty certain its normal these days to exclude them, and I'm also pretty certain its has happened before ...
Now, when was it ? And what happenned about it ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:06 - Feb 19 with 1912 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:58 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
Well they hadn't until a few days ago had they and the last thing they would've wanted responsibility for is crippling the City's football club.
If you're going to chip in try and be a bit more all rounded and less dismissive.
If the Trust do end up paying for your services you need to up your game., |
That's it, let the paranoid nonsense flow.
You don't even have a viable conspiracy theory as to who you believe is defrauding who. Merely a vague notion that something dastardly is afoot, and that Lisa can clear it up.
What a joke.
Here's some light reading from the real world for you:
===========================
Spanish football clubs to repay tens of millions in illegal state subsidies
Real Madrid and FC Barcelona among teams Brussels finds guilty of unfair competition after receiving state finance
Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and five other Spanish football clubs must repay tens of millions of euros in illegal state subsidies, after the EU executive found they had received unfair financial aid from their government.
Real Madrid, the world’s top-earning football club, will have to repay €18.4m (£15.4m), after the European commission judged that an overpriced land deal with local authorities in the Spanish capital was unfairly tilted in the club’s favour.
Separately, an investigation into five Dutch clubs, including PSV Eindhoven, was closed after the commission said no EU rules had been broken.
The European commission, which is the enforcer of EU law, said football was an economic activity and that it had a duty to ensure a level playing field between sports companies.
Full story: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jul/04/spanish-football-clubs-repay-te | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:20 - Feb 19 with 1865 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:04 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
No of course the SD can vote, but that wasn't what you suggested initially.
As for the uncertainty in what he can and can't discuss with the Trust board or subsets thereof that is just plain sloppy. Or amateurish if you prefer. |
I don't understand the sloppy bit?
I simply said that I don't know whether there is a general authority to discuss with the Trust board or whether it's done on specific issues.
I'm certain Stu will know, as will others. I just don't myself (as it's not really relevant) so I was being completely honest.
This isn't a public company Shaky, with price sensitive information and public shareholders. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:22 - Feb 19 with 1857 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:56 - Feb 19 by Darran |
She doesn’t get paid just gets to sit in the Directors Box. |
Lol.
Like Clasie, I declared upfront that I didn't want to avail myself of that. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:27 - Feb 19 with 1830 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:20 - Feb 19 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't understand the sloppy bit?
I simply said that I don't know whether there is a general authority to discuss with the Trust board or whether it's done on specific issues.
I'm certain Stu will know, as will others. I just don't myself (as it's not really relevant) so I was being completely honest.
This isn't a public company Shaky, with price sensitive information and public shareholders. |
Good corporate governance means having things clearly set out.
And the extent to which the club can share condidential information with the Trust board is an important issue I first raised when Laudrup was sacked.
To me it seems obvious that this is an area in need of clarity.
And I don't agree with your suggestion that confidential information here is not price sensitive. What if news leaks that the club is considering a major signing or sale? That could have significant implications for market prices. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
