| Stadium deal agreed 10:01 - Feb 17 with 64369 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 09:06 - Feb 19 with 2349 views | monmouth |
| Stadium deal agreed on 07:36 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
People might be of a different opinion if the Supporter's Rep (Stu Mac) communicated more regularly than he does.
The fact that the Trust don't deem it necessary to communicate, even on his behalf, speak volumes of their lack of desire to feed us any information, despite hundreds of claims that "we know communication is an issue". This is the most obvious place to start and, as many have said, there should at least be a brief update in every matchday programme, as well as online.
I almost feel like there's a middle finger being pointed in the direction of all of us fans (from certain Trust Board members) and the "tail wagging the dog" comment didn't exactly encourage us to think differently, did it? [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 9:23]
|
That is a very good point though. It must be that time again now for us to be told that communication must improve and that it's a priority.
Given that (hollowly laughs) that it has so far improved to the extent that they cant even keep their board members informed, we could be waiting a while.
At least they've earned the right to stick two fingers up to us, whilst cozying up to the people that have shat on us every matchday in their freebie luxury. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:23 - Feb 19 with 2314 views | costalotta |
It’s seems that none of the TB old and new have the metal to penetrate and make an impression. Comms could rally the grass roots asit were but to me reading all of this it’s just the same old same old. No one, not one person can make a proper mark.
We keep saying that we need this or that but IMO we are coming at this, and have been for ever, from a very predictable path. They can see us coming !! And that’s because of the strategy and personalities. We need knowledgable people for sure but we also need a bit of an edge. Those that can think for themselves and out of the box. Proper creative thinkers! And I don’t see that in anyone on the board. And while it’s predictable it will remain pedictable. And thus will be eaten up by whoever is hungry.
This post is not meant to offend anyone it’s just my view. Tin hat at the ready. |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:29 - Feb 19 with 2297 views | TheResurrection |
Send the Trust an email and demand a response.
To alewis@swanstrust.co.uk
To smacdonald@swanstrust.co.uk
Hi Alan/Stu
Can you please explain the process the Trust followed in the Football Club coming to a decision to purchase the lease of the stadium and what are the reasons for doing this, who from the Trust was involved in the deal negotiations and why, pray, why, did they not consult with the elected Trust Board members and communicate accordingly with the wider member base?
I would appreciate an urgent reply to this as I, along with a huge number of Trust members are absolutely disgusted by this and your general running of the organisation.
Many thanks |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:33 - Feb 19 with 2285 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:23 - Feb 19 by costalotta |
It’s seems that none of the TB old and new have the metal to penetrate and make an impression. Comms could rally the grass roots asit were but to me reading all of this it’s just the same old same old. No one, not one person can make a proper mark.
We keep saying that we need this or that but IMO we are coming at this, and have been for ever, from a very predictable path. They can see us coming !! And that’s because of the strategy and personalities. We need knowledgable people for sure but we also need a bit of an edge. Those that can think for themselves and out of the box. Proper creative thinkers! And I don’t see that in anyone on the board. And while it’s predictable it will remain pedictable. And thus will be eaten up by whoever is hungry.
This post is not meant to offend anyone it’s just my view. Tin hat at the ready. |
TBH, I think that's what Lisa brings and I think several in the Trust Board know that.
Lisa's not a loose cannon, but she's definitely not afraid to go against the flow, as she's shown on here many times. I expect that she's got a bigger backbone than most on the Trust Board and the right strategic mind to take on those inside the club too. I would expect her to be able to network from the top table to the bottom with ease, although not just telling people what they want to hear....more she would tell them what they NEED to hear.
I don't think I've ever met Lisa but I've always been impressed with her knowledge and tenacity, but it will be wasted if she's not playing a bigger role within the Trust. I could name 3 or 4 who, combined, couldn't offer the Trust as much as Lisa can.
HJ & the Yanks must be laughing at us. They know that all they have to do is offer a nice seat on the halfway line and access to the Boardroom for pre-match food & drink and they'll fall over themselves to kiss as many arses as they can! I'm not saying they're all like that, as I know they're not, but the job is representing the fans, not necking free wine and blagging free tickets!
Ps sorry if this makes Lisa feel awkward, but I think it had to be said...... |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:39 - Feb 19 with 2260 views | QJumpingJack |
I was just thinking the same. Pearlman and Jenkins must be laughing at us the fans/customers.
Moving forward, perhaps Stuart, Alan and Chris can agree that the Trust will make an official statement at the same time as the club on all major issues which affect the future of the club. A simple easy process.
I also think the club and trust should publish who attends the boardroom. Transparency is key. If there are no issues, it should not be an issue to publish. Afterall it is the fans/customers who are paying for the boardroom and those who attend it. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:41 - Feb 19 with 2252 views | costalotta |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:33 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
TBH, I think that's what Lisa brings and I think several in the Trust Board know that.
Lisa's not a loose cannon, but she's definitely not afraid to go against the flow, as she's shown on here many times. I expect that she's got a bigger backbone than most on the Trust Board and the right strategic mind to take on those inside the club too. I would expect her to be able to network from the top table to the bottom with ease, although not just telling people what they want to hear....more she would tell them what they NEED to hear.
I don't think I've ever met Lisa but I've always been impressed with her knowledge and tenacity, but it will be wasted if she's not playing a bigger role within the Trust. I could name 3 or 4 who, combined, couldn't offer the Trust as much as Lisa can.
HJ & the Yanks must be laughing at us. They know that all they have to do is offer a nice seat on the halfway line and access to the Boardroom for pre-match food & drink and they'll fall over themselves to kiss as many arses as they can! I'm not saying they're all like that, as I know they're not, but the job is representing the fans, not necking free wine and blagging free tickets!
Ps sorry if this makes Lisa feel awkward, but I think it had to be said...... |
Cheers Nick, for the response.
I’m sure Lisa is all that you say and quite probably more. I was not in anyway having a pop. I like to read her posts as I do many others on this site. I totally get building relationships is vital and yoUll know yourself it takes at least two to tango, to make it happen. But tango is only one style of dance. So what happens if the other doesn’t want to build meaningful relationships? | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:46 - Feb 19 with 2239 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:33 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
TBH, I think that's what Lisa brings and I think several in the Trust Board know that.
Lisa's not a loose cannon, but she's definitely not afraid to go against the flow, as she's shown on here many times. I expect that she's got a bigger backbone than most on the Trust Board and the right strategic mind to take on those inside the club too. I would expect her to be able to network from the top table to the bottom with ease, although not just telling people what they want to hear....more she would tell them what they NEED to hear.
I don't think I've ever met Lisa but I've always been impressed with her knowledge and tenacity, but it will be wasted if she's not playing a bigger role within the Trust. I could name 3 or 4 who, combined, couldn't offer the Trust as much as Lisa can.
HJ & the Yanks must be laughing at us. They know that all they have to do is offer a nice seat on the halfway line and access to the Boardroom for pre-match food & drink and they'll fall over themselves to kiss as many arses as they can! I'm not saying they're all like that, as I know they're not, but the job is representing the fans, not necking free wine and blagging free tickets!
Ps sorry if this makes Lisa feel awkward, but I think it had to be said...... |
I agree on Lisa, but shes not a board member. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:05 - Feb 19 with 2203 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:41 - Feb 19 by costalotta |
Cheers Nick, for the response.
I’m sure Lisa is all that you say and quite probably more. I was not in anyway having a pop. I like to read her posts as I do many others on this site. I totally get building relationships is vital and yoUll know yourself it takes at least two to tango, to make it happen. But tango is only one style of dance. So what happens if the other doesn’t want to build meaningful relationships? |
Good point.
First question though - is there a relationship there to be had? PhilS has already commented on this and you've got to take his word for it, based on the knowledge and history he's got with the current and former owners.
Saying that, you're right that being able to dance different dances requires certain skills and I think someone like Lisa has shown she's able to mix if with people of various backgrounds and levels of success on her and in her job. I imagine that 'doing different dances' is what she does quite a lot in her job.
If the other party simply doesn't want to dance at all, they still need to be scrutinised and held accountable. The other party needs to know this and they need to know that they're up against some who's no numpty who'd bend over backwards (or forwards) to get a free dinner and ticket on the halfway line.
At the moment, probably due to the lack of information coming out of the Trust, we could be right in presuming that it's not the case with many on the current Board! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:11 - Feb 19 with 2188 views | Bobby_Fischer |
phil s, the guy who was in charge when the club got took over? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:12 - Feb 19 with 2184 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:46 - Feb 19 by Bobby_Fischer |
I agree on Lisa, but shes not a board member. |
She's an affiliate and is technically part of the Board, isn't she?
The idiots should be begging for people like Lisa to join the Trust, instead of filling it with library assistants and retired teachers (with no disrespect to library assistants or retired teachers). | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:16 - Feb 19 with 2179 views | Lord_Bony |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:06 - Feb 17 by Dr_Winston |
If we survive I wouldn't be surprised to see attempts to sell soon, especially with the new TV deal in place. |
Any business that is about to be sold will make sure it has security of tenure...that is a long lease agreement in place. It would not be good to have it all up in the air,so a signed long term lease is essential.
This makes it a much more attractive proposition for any potential buyers thereby increasing the value substantially.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:16 - Feb 19 with 2174 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:12 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
She's an affiliate and is technically part of the Board, isn't she?
The idiots should be begging for people like Lisa to join the Trust, instead of filling it with library assistants and retired teachers (with no disrespect to library assistants or retired teachers). |
I agree, shes the only once of intellgence near the thing. The rest are ex teachers or civil servants | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:21 - Feb 19 with 2167 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:11 - Feb 19 by Bobby_Fischer |
phil s, the guy who was in charge when the club got took over? |
Very true....that can't be denied.
Phil definitely made mistakes and probably should have been more ruthless when managing the Board that he chaired but his comments/opinions mirror exactly what I'm being told by so many other people too.
If anyone thinks that the Yanks would rather build a relationship than see the Trust disappear completely then I think they're barking mad. The Yanks see the Trust (and therefore the fans) as (a) a source of a small percentage of the overall revenue and (b) an unwanted distraction.
If they don't want to dance, let's at least make sure that they know we're watching every single step and that we'll stop anything that doesn't protect the short, mid AND long term security of the club.
Letting the club take over a 50 year lease, without a proper forensic examination of the deal, is tantamount to evasion of duty! It would be one thing if there wasn't someone with the knowledge and experience available, but there is.....and she's being ignored! | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:25 - Feb 19 with 2160 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:21 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
Very true....that can't be denied.
Phil definitely made mistakes and probably should have been more ruthless when managing the Board that he chaired but his comments/opinions mirror exactly what I'm being told by so many other people too.
If anyone thinks that the Yanks would rather build a relationship than see the Trust disappear completely then I think they're barking mad. The Yanks see the Trust (and therefore the fans) as (a) a source of a small percentage of the overall revenue and (b) an unwanted distraction.
If they don't want to dance, let's at least make sure that they know we're watching every single step and that we'll stop anything that doesn't protect the short, mid AND long term security of the club.
Letting the club take over a 50 year lease, without a proper forensic examination of the deal, is tantamount to evasion of duty! It would be one thing if there wasn't someone with the knowledge and experience available, but there is.....and she's being ignored! |
They weren't told? Ignorance is bliss. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:32 - Feb 19 with 2145 views | Lord_Bony |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:25 - Feb 19 by Bobby_Fischer |
They weren't told? Ignorance is bliss. |
They knew what was happening but they couldn't be arsed to do anything about it.
Shame on them. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:46 - Feb 19 with 2106 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:32 - Feb 19 by Lord_Bony |
They knew what was happening but they couldn't be arsed to do anything about it.
Shame on them. |
Not being arsed is one thing. Deliberately not questioning the deal in the finest of details is a huge middle finger up to every single one of us.
It also brings into question who is involved from the Trust's side and why them? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:48 - Feb 19 with 2090 views | perchrockjack |
Of course ,the concern is the fact the Owners are so opaque in their actions and cannot be trusted .
We really should need to have a Trust or whatever the other set up is called.
We really should need a Lisa, Chrissy ,Clasie or anyone else asking the hard questions
And that s the crying shame | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:53 - Feb 19 with 2082 views | marchamjack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:29 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
Send the Trust an email and demand a response.
To alewis@swanstrust.co.uk
To smacdonald@swanstrust.co.uk
Hi Alan/Stu
Can you please explain the process the Trust followed in the Football Club coming to a decision to purchase the lease of the stadium and what are the reasons for doing this, who from the Trust was involved in the deal negotiations and why, pray, why, did they not consult with the elected Trust Board members and communicate accordingly with the wider member base?
I would appreciate an urgent reply to this as I, along with a huge number of Trust members are absolutely disgusted by this and your general running of the organisation.
Many thanks |
Will do. Cheers.
I'll share the response...on here. |  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:57 - Feb 19 with 2064 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:53 - Feb 19 by marchamjack |
Will do. Cheers.
I'll share the response...on here. |
Do you honestly expect a response?
If they did, I am pretty sure it would come in the shape of one wrinkled and hairy middle finger!!! | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:21 - Feb 19 with 2009 views | marchamjack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:57 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
Do you honestly expect a response?
If they did, I am pretty sure it would come in the shape of one wrinkled and hairy middle finger!!! |
No I genuinely don't, hence the ... after response.
Which in itself is a huge indictment in terms of the state of the Trust. | |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:25 - Feb 19 with 2002 views | Shaky |
When Kaplan's group purchased their stake in the club, the Trust went from being one of the largest most important shareholders to being a minority financial investor, basically with rights to receive some information, dividends, and vote their minority shareholding at a general meeting of shareholders.
At the same time Kaplan's group became the controlling shareholder with full rights and power to manage the day to day running of the club. In this context controlling means exactly what it says on the tin.
Any consultation or discussion vouchsafed to the Trust on the day to day running of the business such as entering into agreements regarding leases is a matter of courtesy, and not an obligation.
That this new dynamic has as yet not been grasped by the majority of fans is unsurprising; in fact it is in my opinion one of the main reasons the Trust membership voted to reject legal action last summer.
However, the fact that the implications of this dynamic do not appear to have been understood by Trust board members is significantly more problematic, in my view. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:41 - Feb 19 with 1973 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:25 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
When Kaplan's group purchased their stake in the club, the Trust went from being one of the largest most important shareholders to being a minority financial investor, basically with rights to receive some information, dividends, and vote their minority shareholding at a general meeting of shareholders.
At the same time Kaplan's group became the controlling shareholder with full rights and power to manage the day to day running of the club. In this context controlling means exactly what it says on the tin.
Any consultation or discussion vouchsafed to the Trust on the day to day running of the business such as entering into agreements regarding leases is a matter of courtesy, and not an obligation.
That this new dynamic has as yet not been grasped by the majority of fans is unsurprising; in fact it is in my opinion one of the main reasons the Trust membership voted to reject legal action last summer.
However, the fact that the implications of this dynamic do not appear to have been understood by Trust board members is significantly more problematic, in my view. |
Shaky,
Quick comment before I have to pop out to a meeting:
The Trust was no.2 shareholder before and is no.2 shareholder now, if I'm not mistaken. The difference, as you rightly pointed out, is that their voting rights mean next to nothing.
BUT, what the Trust COULD do (if it was actually representing the fans) is to garner support from the many and make enough noise to make it VERY difficult for the Yanks to do much without either the consult of the Trust or the approval of the Trust.
Yes, the Yanks aren't obliged to, but the Trust SHOULD be able to show the Yanks that, with the FULL backing of tens of thousands of Jacks, they should be consulted and respected.
I think the Yanks laugh at the Trust now. I think they've got them eating out of their hand and perfectly positioned. Exactly where they want them. The Yanks make decisions and decide not only if they want to tell the Trust, but when they decide to do so, they also dictate what the Trust can say about it.
We might be minority owners, but we have boots on the ground and voices in the stands IF WE ARE UNITED AS ONE. The Trust has single-handedly managed to ensure that the fans' voices are pretty mute and, as such, so is the Trust. The Trust has alienated itself from its strongest vehicle....THE FANS!
As a gauge to how right or wrong I might be, I often wonder what Richard Lillicrap would think of the a certain situation and honestly believe he would be absolutely disgusted with the state of both the relationship between the fans and the Trust and the Trust and the owners right now!
Sad! | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:43 - Feb 19 with 1967 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:25 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
When Kaplan's group purchased their stake in the club, the Trust went from being one of the largest most important shareholders to being a minority financial investor, basically with rights to receive some information, dividends, and vote their minority shareholding at a general meeting of shareholders.
At the same time Kaplan's group became the controlling shareholder with full rights and power to manage the day to day running of the club. In this context controlling means exactly what it says on the tin.
Any consultation or discussion vouchsafed to the Trust on the day to day running of the business such as entering into agreements regarding leases is a matter of courtesy, and not an obligation.
That this new dynamic has as yet not been grasped by the majority of fans is unsurprising; in fact it is in my opinion one of the main reasons the Trust membership voted to reject legal action last summer.
However, the fact that the implications of this dynamic do not appear to have been understood by Trust board members is significantly more problematic, in my view. |
Bar Lisa, have you seen the credentials of the trust? How do ypu expect them to understand? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:28 - Feb 19 with 1889 views | Uxbridge |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:25 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
When Kaplan's group purchased their stake in the club, the Trust went from being one of the largest most important shareholders to being a minority financial investor, basically with rights to receive some information, dividends, and vote their minority shareholding at a general meeting of shareholders.
At the same time Kaplan's group became the controlling shareholder with full rights and power to manage the day to day running of the club. In this context controlling means exactly what it says on the tin.
Any consultation or discussion vouchsafed to the Trust on the day to day running of the business such as entering into agreements regarding leases is a matter of courtesy, and not an obligation.
That this new dynamic has as yet not been grasped by the majority of fans is unsurprising; in fact it is in my opinion one of the main reasons the Trust membership voted to reject legal action last summer.
However, the fact that the implications of this dynamic do not appear to have been understood by Trust board members is significantly more problematic, in my view. |
I agree with most of that, at least from a legal perspective. As for the final paragraph, not so much .. the debate isn't so much understanding that dynamic, but the best way to respond to it.
And it's those first paragraphs that, for me anyway, are the main issues at play here and dictate how the Trust needs to operate going forward. However, as ever, the debate on here has focused on the personal. I'm not going to air dirty linen in public regarding the other board members, although safe to say internal communications did not take place in sufficiently timely manner (although, due to work taking me to decreasingly glamourous parts of southern Texas, I wouldn't have been party to the debate last week anyway). IMO at least, the issue that is far more relevant is that no-one on the Trust had sufficiently timely view of the information, and that's an issue with the club.
It's been crystal clear for some time that the influence of the Trust is significantly limited in the new world order. It's also not the first time that the Trust has been put into a position where it's been presented with a fait accompli with no time to properly review. I'm often reminded of the time the Trust was presented with a proposed new SHA 10 minutes before a meeting. They've got previous.
There's no point me saying again on here that the Trust needs to be far more aggressive in how it acts and that there's only really one path open to the Trust now. The situation hasn't changed on that score IMO for some time now. I would expect more on that in the coming weeks.
On a final note, this directors box subplot rather grips my shiit. I've got no interest in being there, and I've never understood the mentality of those who view it as some sort of perk. Who the hell would choose to be in the same room as Jenkins, Dineen and Morgan eating a buffet meal? Anyway, there's been a split at Trust board level (as Phil has alluded to) regarding those who think the Trust's interests are best served by being there, and those who think we should steer well clear. I'm in the latter camp but can understand the logic of the former. Demands for things such as registers of those who have been in attendance there rather miss the reality, at least of this season ... there's been a struggle to get anyone to attend there. I've seen plenty of last minute emails asking for anyone to attend there. From what I've seen, some have done so out of duty (as Phil says he did last season). As I've said before, if anyone thinks it's a perk, then it's a pretty shiit one. I'd much prefer the Trust stepped away entirely from it though. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:39 - Feb 19 with 1860 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:41 - Feb 19 by MoscowJack |
Shaky,
Quick comment before I have to pop out to a meeting:
The Trust was no.2 shareholder before and is no.2 shareholder now, if I'm not mistaken. The difference, as you rightly pointed out, is that their voting rights mean next to nothing.
BUT, what the Trust COULD do (if it was actually representing the fans) is to garner support from the many and make enough noise to make it VERY difficult for the Yanks to do much without either the consult of the Trust or the approval of the Trust.
Yes, the Yanks aren't obliged to, but the Trust SHOULD be able to show the Yanks that, with the FULL backing of tens of thousands of Jacks, they should be consulted and respected.
I think the Yanks laugh at the Trust now. I think they've got them eating out of their hand and perfectly positioned. Exactly where they want them. The Yanks make decisions and decide not only if they want to tell the Trust, but when they decide to do so, they also dictate what the Trust can say about it.
We might be minority owners, but we have boots on the ground and voices in the stands IF WE ARE UNITED AS ONE. The Trust has single-handedly managed to ensure that the fans' voices are pretty mute and, as such, so is the Trust. The Trust has alienated itself from its strongest vehicle....THE FANS!
As a gauge to how right or wrong I might be, I often wonder what Richard Lillicrap would think of the a certain situation and honestly believe he would be absolutely disgusted with the state of both the relationship between the fans and the Trust and the Trust and the owners right now!
Sad! |
Boil all that down you have:
A. The Trust has no legal power; and;
B. Thousands of fans ought to be able to exert influence.
Agreed.
We have recently heard the argument from a variety of more or less surprising sources that the Trust's shareholding is actually an impediment to speaking out bluntly on behalf of those fans.
The logical conclusion is to force a sale of the stake, bank the twenty something million, and start speaking bluntly.
That should be the priority with everything else is a distraction. Get on with it! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
