| Stadium deal agreed 10:01 - Feb 17 with 64421 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 13:57 - Feb 19 with 2155 views | TheResurrection |
I've had a reply from Nigel Hamer, but nothing yet from Alan Lewis. I had Stu MacDonald's email incorrect earlier.....
""
Hi Chris,
I was aware from the January Trust Board Meeting which are in the Minutes that the lease completion of the Stadium was imminent.
Stuart confirmed this at our Board Meeting on the 12th February. He was not aware at that meeting that there was anything further
to report, i.e. any documentation relating to the Lease being presented to him for discussion with our sub-group which includes Lisa
Clement and then relayed to the main Trust Board.
I believe that you have Alan Lewis' e-mail address as I have seen e-mail correspondence this morning between the two of you.
Stuart's e-mail address is stu.mac@swanstrust.co.uk
Regards,
Nigel
p.s.
Congratulations on the baby."" |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:07 - Feb 19 with 2150 views | Batterseajack |
Haven't read the last 12 pages, but I suspect this deal is to pave the way for stadium expansion. I know little about real estate law, but i imagine this will make it easier for the club to carry out proper works to the stadium and expand capacity. They would understandably keep these plans hush hush whilst they work out what they want / what they can afford etc with the design team. [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 14:22]
|  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:50 - Feb 19 with 2071 views | 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? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:57 - Feb 19 with 2049 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| 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? |
They either were or were not told. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:05 - Feb 19 with 2031 views | Darran |
| 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? |
This didn’t all happen on Saturday morning mind.
Seriously WTF is happening to people on here? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:09 - Feb 19 with 2016 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:05 - Feb 19 by Darran |
This didn’t all happen on Saturday morning mind.
Seriously WTF is happening to people on here? |
Neither did the American takeover | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:13 - Feb 19 with 1990 views | TheResurrection |
My beef is we knew, sorry, the Trust knew, the deal was imminent.
Not sure if anyone feels the need to look up the definition of the word imminent but it suggests to me it was about to be signed off....
So what exactly was Stu and Alan waiting for? Documentation relating to the report? What, for the deal which was imminent?
Did he ask even? Did he demand to know, did he pick it up with the Council???
Or did he just sit there with his hands under his legs waiting for something to happen??
Is this it, now, is this what we elected?
Lisa? [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 15:14]
| |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:08 - Feb 19 with 1914 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:28 - Feb 19 by Uxbridge |
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. |
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! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:57 - Feb 19 with 1847 views | Flashberryjack |
| 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! |
"that didn't stop HJ, the Yanks and Trust all screwing Huw Cooze over, did it?"
???? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:12 - Feb 19 with 1820 views | Shaky |
| 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! |
"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. "
What's the point, Nick?
I used to work with a particularly arrogant Frenchman who was ostensibly higher up the chain of command than me, but whose sole function was to open doors to his mates in elevated social spheres and then get out of the way to let the professionals take over.
He used to insist on absolutely everything. And although that worked very well in posh hotels and restaurants, in the boardroom he came across as an idiot; a fair reflection.
That anecdote has no further significance than to illustrate how pointless the kind of exercise you are recommending is.
Getting Lisa and the Trust board to spend time and energy reviewing a no doubt fairly complex deal that Kaplan has absolutely no intention of taking a blind bit of notice of. And now seeingly advocating some sort of major post mortem into what has gone wrong here. To which the answer is nothing has gone wrong, rather it is simply the present order of things.
The Trust had no standing to be consulted, and Team Kaplan would have undoubtedly failed to listen, and it is all history now because the decision has been taken.
Uxbridge has indicated there will be movement on a path towards legal action in the next few weeks. That is actually comething constructive that clears a deadlock and paves the way for a more effective future fan representation.
I suggest everyone tries to keep their eye on the ball and not allow themselves to be sidetracked by a pointless wild goose chase raking over a past that can not be altered. [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 17:18]
|  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:21 - Feb 19 with 1796 views | max936 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:13 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
My beef is we knew, sorry, the Trust knew, the deal was imminent.
Not sure if anyone feels the need to look up the definition of the word imminent but it suggests to me it was about to be signed off....
So what exactly was Stu and Alan waiting for? Documentation relating to the report? What, for the deal which was imminent?
Did he ask even? Did he demand to know, did he pick it up with the Council???
Or did he just sit there with his hands under his legs waiting for something to happen??
Is this it, now, is this what we elected?
Lisa? [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 15:14]
|
It seems clear that they do exactly that sit on their hands and shrug their shoulders and say what can we do, they've got to go their not fit for purpose, they don't communicate with the fans and they don't seem to be able or want to argue their case. Shocking.
Unless they want to prove me wrong, but the above seems the case to me. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:23 - Feb 19 with 1790 views | 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. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:26 - Feb 19 with 1780 views | perchrockjack |
Amongst this maelstrom,I asked what the best option would be from out band of PS business consultants .
Not answered so I ll do it myself.
Surely it's the Yanks selling ,making a profit for themselves but selling to a consortium with real financial bite and an interest in truly moving us on up.
Can't be done? Well, yes it can. Yes we can | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:27 - Feb 19 with 1780 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:13 - Feb 19 by TheResurrection |
My beef is we knew, sorry, the Trust knew, the deal was imminent.
Not sure if anyone feels the need to look up the definition of the word imminent but it suggests to me it was about to be signed off....
So what exactly was Stu and Alan waiting for? Documentation relating to the report? What, for the deal which was imminent?
Did he ask even? Did he demand to know, did he pick it up with the Council???
Or did he just sit there with his hands under his legs waiting for something to happen??
Is this it, now, is this what we elected?
Lisa? [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 15:14]
|
As I said before, the deal was known about in outline, the understanding was that it was going to happen, but the expectation (mine at least) was that those involved in the negotiation would circulate the documentation once completed which would allow for review and comment.
That last bit didn't happen. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:27 - Feb 19 with 1778 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:21 - Feb 19 by max936 |
It seems clear that they do exactly that sit on their hands and shrug their shoulders and say what can we do, they've got to go their not fit for purpose, they don't communicate with the fans and they don't seem to be able or want to argue their case. Shocking.
Unless they want to prove me wrong, but the above seems the case to me. |
At the end of the day they are volunteers who meet once a month.
I think people need to inject some degree of realism in determining what action it is reaonable to expect of them, and also what criticism is warranted. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:27 - Feb 19 with 1776 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:27 - Feb 19 by londonlisa2001 |
As I said before, the deal was known about in outline, the understanding was that it was going to happen, but the expectation (mine at least) was that those involved in the negotiation would circulate the documentation once completed which would allow for review and comment.
That last bit didn't happen. |
But who did you expect to comment to? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:39 - Feb 19 with 1750 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:12 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
"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. "
What's the point, Nick?
I used to work with a particularly arrogant Frenchman who was ostensibly higher up the chain of command than me, but whose sole function was to open doors to his mates in elevated social spheres and then get out of the way to let the professionals take over.
He used to insist on absolutely everything. And although that worked very well in posh hotels and restaurants, in the boardroom he came across as an idiot; a fair reflection.
That anecdote has no further significance than to illustrate how pointless the kind of exercise you are recommending is.
Getting Lisa and the Trust board to spend time and energy reviewing a no doubt fairly complex deal that Kaplan has absolutely no intention of taking a blind bit of notice of. And now seeingly advocating some sort of major post mortem into what has gone wrong here. To which the answer is nothing has gone wrong, rather it is simply the present order of things.
The Trust had no standing to be consulted, and Team Kaplan would have undoubtedly failed to listen, and it is all history now because the decision has been taken.
Uxbridge has indicated there will be movement on a path towards legal action in the next few weeks. That is actually comething constructive that clears a deadlock and paves the way for a more effective future fan representation.
I suggest everyone tries to keep their eye on the ball and not allow themselves to be sidetracked by a pointless wild goose chase raking over a past that can not be altered. [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 17:18]
|
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. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:39 - Feb 19 with 1749 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:12 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
"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. "
What's the point, Nick?
I used to work with a particularly arrogant Frenchman who was ostensibly higher up the chain of command than me, but whose sole function was to open doors to his mates in elevated social spheres and then get out of the way to let the professionals take over.
He used to insist on absolutely everything. And although that worked very well in posh hotels and restaurants, in the boardroom he came across as an idiot; a fair reflection.
That anecdote has no further significance than to illustrate how pointless the kind of exercise you are recommending is.
Getting Lisa and the Trust board to spend time and energy reviewing a no doubt fairly complex deal that Kaplan has absolutely no intention of taking a blind bit of notice of. And now seeingly advocating some sort of major post mortem into what has gone wrong here. To which the answer is nothing has gone wrong, rather it is simply the present order of things.
The Trust had no standing to be consulted, and Team Kaplan would have undoubtedly failed to listen, and it is all history now because the decision has been taken.
Uxbridge has indicated there will be movement on a path towards legal action in the next few weeks. That is actually comething constructive that clears a deadlock and paves the way for a more effective future fan representation.
I suggest everyone tries to keep their eye on the ball and not allow themselves to be sidetracked by a pointless wild goose chase raking over a past that can not be altered. [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 17:18]
|
Shaky,
Firstly, I'm not talking about shouting and screaming at every opportunity as that eventually becomes white noise, but taking a principled position of an entity which owns 21% of the club instead.
Your analogy simply doesn't apply to this.
It is about choosing your battles and this is potentially a HUGE one. Not informing the 2nd largest partner about basically committing the club to a 50 year debt is massive and the lack of appreciation of the Trust shows their total lack of respect for them.
I know we're not in a perfect world, but if we were the Trust would be powered by the fans with everyone behind them 100%, a bit like a union representing its members. Had this trick been pulled against a very strong Trust, they could have asked the fans to stand up and be counted, which they would.
How much difference this would make would depend on what value the Yanks have put on the fans. Are we a tiny revenue stream (compared to tv money) and irrelevant or an important way of increasing the shockingly low commercial revenue?
As the Yanks know the Trust are as weak as a fortnight, they can play these tricks and get away with them.
As you know, the Yanks have no obligation to extend any official respect to the Trust when formalising these deals but I am pretty sure that they would have done so anyway, had the Trust been backed 100% by the fans.
I also think you underestimate the voice of the fans when they're correctly motivated. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:44 - Feb 19 with 1731 views | E20Jack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:27 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
But who did you expect to comment to? |
The members for a start.
I think you believe that people are under the false impression the Trust has any power. I think everyone by now, I hope, realise that is not the case. But they potentially represent a group of people that have one heck of a lot of power - the fan base.
The Trust is now a review and report organisation until legal action has concluded and remedy applied. A fly on the wall of the boardroom and then subsequently in the ointment.
The Trust need to be on the front foot in these instances informing the fans of the ins and outs and the implications of deals such as this prior to the spin doctors painting it as something other than what it is. [Post edited 19 Feb 2018 17:47]
|  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:50 - Feb 19 with 1712 views | max936 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:27 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
At the end of the day they are volunteers who meet once a month.
I think people need to inject some degree of realism in determining what action it is reaonable to expect of them, and also what criticism is warranted. |
They could and should stand tall and strong and with respect if its all to much for them as it appears then say so and stand aside, 21% says that the Trust should have a bigger say and influence than they currently do. IMO.
They may meet once a month yes but there's Emails and Phones to discus things how hard is it to create a conference call from the comfort of their own homes to discus things, both Lisa and Andrew weren't even told that the deal was being signed off they found out from here. appalling way to run an organisation, again IMO, | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:50 - Feb 19 with 1710 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:27 - Feb 19 by Shaky |
But who did you expect to comment to? |
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. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:54 - Feb 19 with 1702 views | MoscowJack |
| 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. |
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. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:59 - Feb 19 with 1688 views | E20Jack |
| 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. |
Just on number 3..
Why are people so concerned about this? What on earth do you expect them to he able to do with 800k anyway? Pay off someone else's bills maybe, granted. Do we want that though? I would struggle to see that as acceptable. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:23 - Feb 19 with 1638 views | monmouth |
| 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. |
There should be no vote. There ae not two serious and viable options, not even for lickspittle poodles that enjoy their 'status'. Just get the court date set. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
