| Stadium deal agreed 10:01 - Feb 17 with 64653 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 13:56 - Feb 23 with 3405 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:27 - Feb 23 by MattG |
There was no vote on the stadium deal while I was on the Board.
No argument on the rest.
EDIT: Just checked and neither Alan nor Viv Brooks were at that meeting. The others were Will Morris, Dave Dalton and Ron Knuszka. [Post edited 23 Feb 2018 13:33]
|
Thank you Matt |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:21 - Feb 23 with 3357 views | Phil_S |
So letâs go back to this November meeting which ultimately ended my tenure on the board
The âcampaignâ to pull out of the deal was championed by mr with Matt and Andy in that camp too. My reasoning (and I wonât speak for the others) was that the term sheet we finally had was different enough from what we had presented in the summer that we should pull out. There were those in the club (and trust) who seemed happy enough to say it was a misunderstanding but in my mind this is when you have misunderstood something not when a huge amount of detail has been left out of the negotiations. To put it in approximate laymanâs terms the difference was a few hundred thousand pounds and not in our favour. I had and provided proof to the Americans of the larger amount that they had confirmed in communications but this was claimed to be a misunderstanding - for me end of relationship
The opposite argument was led by Stuart and ultimately backed by the remainder of the board. They all felt that negotiations should continue and some backed their co start view that we should be grateful for what we got.not for the first time in board meetings Viv Williams and I had a reasonable sized disagreement where he ended by telling me I was too close to the debate and not impartial. Whilst arguing his point of view as clearly he was impartial on that...
I may not have the board experience of say Lisa but I have a reasonably senior position in my company and manage multi million pound contracts - negotiating tables are not unusual for me and I certainly know when it becomes clear itâs time to walk away and this point was definitely it (it could be argued it was before)
What Andrew Lisa and others are now experiencing is the passive nature of the majority of the board and I know their frustrations. I donât know where they are currently but why the F**k there wasnât a public pulling of the deal when it was put on hold is beyond me
This weeks trust email and subsequent emails from Alan that have been published here are plAcid and subservient and as I pointed out in November staying in then would just mean we were always happy to take whatever scraps were thrown from the top table and so it seems to be true
Apologies for the spelling mistakes typing on an iPhone with a cracked screen |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:25 - Feb 23 with 3350 views | Phil_S |
I will add here were 2/3 at the meeting in November who waive red between pulling
Out of the deal or staying in
I would assume that recent events would mean they should now sit in theno relationship camp
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:25 - Feb 23 with 3348 views | Phil_S |
And finally what happened to the members forum in February ? | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:59 - Feb 23 with 3312 views | chad |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:21 - Feb 23 by Phil_S |
So letâs go back to this November meeting which ultimately ended my tenure on the board
The âcampaignâ to pull out of the deal was championed by mr with Matt and Andy in that camp too. My reasoning (and I wonât speak for the others) was that the term sheet we finally had was different enough from what we had presented in the summer that we should pull out. There were those in the club (and trust) who seemed happy enough to say it was a misunderstanding but in my mind this is when you have misunderstood something not when a huge amount of detail has been left out of the negotiations. To put it in approximate laymanâs terms the difference was a few hundred thousand pounds and not in our favour. I had and provided proof to the Americans of the larger amount that they had confirmed in communications but this was claimed to be a misunderstanding - for me end of relationship
The opposite argument was led by Stuart and ultimately backed by the remainder of the board. They all felt that negotiations should continue and some backed their co start view that we should be grateful for what we got.not for the first time in board meetings Viv Williams and I had a reasonable sized disagreement where he ended by telling me I was too close to the debate and not impartial. Whilst arguing his point of view as clearly he was impartial on that...
I may not have the board experience of say Lisa but I have a reasonably senior position in my company and manage multi million pound contracts - negotiating tables are not unusual for me and I certainly know when it becomes clear itâs time to walk away and this point was definitely it (it could be argued it was before)
What Andrew Lisa and others are now experiencing is the passive nature of the majority of the board and I know their frustrations. I donât know where they are currently but why the F**k there wasnât a public pulling of the deal when it was put on hold is beyond me
This weeks trust email and subsequent emails from Alan that have been published here are plAcid and subservient and as I pointed out in November staying in then would just mean we were always happy to take whatever scraps were thrown from the top table and so it seems to be true
Apologies for the spelling mistakes typing on an iPhone with a cracked screen |
Through a glass darkly then
Sorry downvoted you in error so upvoted you also to compensate
Thanks for the interesting info
If I am correct, that that is tail wagging th dog Viv, then of course he is impartial in his own mind.
How else could he justify to himself, thinking members giving their views in an organisation specifically to represent the members was the tail wagging the dog,let alone publicly proclaim that at a member meeting without censure. His position should have been untenable after a comment like that so very clearly heartfeltly presented |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:21 - Feb 23 with 3277 views | Lord_Bony |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:21 - Feb 23 by Phil_S |
So letâs go back to this November meeting which ultimately ended my tenure on the board
The âcampaignâ to pull out of the deal was championed by mr with Matt and Andy in that camp too. My reasoning (and I wonât speak for the others) was that the term sheet we finally had was different enough from what we had presented in the summer that we should pull out. There were those in the club (and trust) who seemed happy enough to say it was a misunderstanding but in my mind this is when you have misunderstood something not when a huge amount of detail has been left out of the negotiations. To put it in approximate laymanâs terms the difference was a few hundred thousand pounds and not in our favour. I had and provided proof to the Americans of the larger amount that they had confirmed in communications but this was claimed to be a misunderstanding - for me end of relationship
The opposite argument was led by Stuart and ultimately backed by the remainder of the board. They all felt that negotiations should continue and some backed their co start view that we should be grateful for what we got.not for the first time in board meetings Viv Williams and I had a reasonable sized disagreement where he ended by telling me I was too close to the debate and not impartial. Whilst arguing his point of view as clearly he was impartial on that...
I may not have the board experience of say Lisa but I have a reasonably senior position in my company and manage multi million pound contracts - negotiating tables are not unusual for me and I certainly know when it becomes clear itâs time to walk away and this point was definitely it (it could be argued it was before)
What Andrew Lisa and others are now experiencing is the passive nature of the majority of the board and I know their frustrations. I donât know where they are currently but why the F**k there wasnât a public pulling of the deal when it was put on hold is beyond me
This weeks trust email and subsequent emails from Alan that have been published here are plAcid and subservient and as I pointed out in November staying in then would just mean we were always happy to take whatever scraps were thrown from the top table and so it seems to be true
Apologies for the spelling mistakes typing on an iPhone with a cracked screen |
Well said Phil no one can deny you did some very good work there as chairman of the trust but it's obvious there needs to be a change in the leadership because they're doing the trust no favours at all the last episode of the lease negotiation being ignored was the final straw. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:02 - Feb 23 with 3239 views | chad |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:44 - Feb 23 by MattG |
Iâve said previously that, based on the situation at the time, I believe the recommendation to accept the deal was the right one and that the documents issued were reflective of where things stood. I know you and others donât agree with that but I can only give my view.
I have also said that the subsequent deterioration in the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks was sufficient, in my view, to necessitate a further consultation with members given how that relationship had been portrayed in the documents. Others on the Trust Board saw it differently and, as ECB has said, majority rules. |
I am not sure your opinion was that strong about it being the right decision given just before Christmas you said ...
âIt was the seemingly positive nature of the future relationship between the Trust and the Yanks which just about made the original deal palatable for me.â
And also quite correctly
âI felt it was fundamental, given that we would be waiving the legal option in respect of the original sale and were also somewhat reliant on them in terms of ensuring we receive a fair price if the drag rights were exercised.â
It was fundamental, but as we now all know it did not exist and repeated actions during and post sale had before the recommendation to accept the deal given clear signals of this and many supporters repeatedly pointed this out when we were allowed to
However that is history we need to learn from it
Also not sure the majority rules as this is a supporters organisation and the vast majority of supporters are not included in consultations and decisions. Drastic action is required to ensure the shameless majority of Board Members acting against the involvement of members are brought into line or removed | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:51 - Feb 23 with 3203 views | MattG |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:02 - Feb 23 by chad |
I am not sure your opinion was that strong about it being the right decision given just before Christmas you said ...
âIt was the seemingly positive nature of the future relationship between the Trust and the Yanks which just about made the original deal palatable for me.â
And also quite correctly
âI felt it was fundamental, given that we would be waiving the legal option in respect of the original sale and were also somewhat reliant on them in terms of ensuring we receive a fair price if the drag rights were exercised.â
It was fundamental, but as we now all know it did not exist and repeated actions during and post sale had before the recommendation to accept the deal given clear signals of this and many supporters repeatedly pointed this out when we were allowed to
However that is history we need to learn from it
Also not sure the majority rules as this is a supporters organisation and the vast majority of supporters are not included in consultations and decisions. Drastic action is required to ensure the shameless majority of Board Members acting against the involvement of members are brought into line or removed |
Not sure that's any different to what I've said now, to be honest - that the relationship (or at least how it appeared to be) at that time was a key part of me being able to recommend the deal.
In terms of "majority rules", I'm not sure how else you expect a committee to operate - it's not feasible to engage the entire membership or wider fanbase on every decision. Just because one doesn't agree with the majority doesn't mean the system doesn't work. I do agree, though, that the makeup of the Trust Board doesn't reflect the current views of the fans which probably makes those "majority rules" decisions less palatable. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium deal agreed on 23:15 - Feb 23 with 3003 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:25 - Feb 23 by Phil_S |
I will add here were 2/3 at the meeting in November who waive red between pulling
Out of the deal or staying in
I would assume that recent events would mean they should now sit in theno relationship camp
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Phil. I finally thank you for this and giving us again more insight, although I can't really understand everything you're saying, it's the cracked phone probably.
It seems to me that one or two people out of the whole fanbase are making detrimental decisions because they are weak, but also because they think they know best.
And this based on nothing more than the time they've spent serving on the Trust Board. They are the dogs, we are the tails wagging behind them.
I've met Stuart when I met Phil. Yes everyone's right he seemed a lovely chap, very gentle and quiet, and a bit deaf perhaps. He kept on asking me to repeat things in close to him. He knew my father he said and of course is a massive Swans fan,has home and away.
That's the pros. The cons are I couldn't see any grit or real presence there, I couldn't see a man who would say Boo to a goose let alone stand up for the fans at large. Now I don't want to get personal here but sometimes it's clear some people are cut out for some roles and some aren't.
It was the same with the people that interviewed me. Nice guys, of a certain vintage, all very civil and polite but zero energy or charisma or gravitas.
These are not people that would energise others, innovate ideas and get people thinking, or rally troops and motivate. They're also not people that could walk into a Boardroom and say stop, enough of this shit, you're taking the piss, our fans will hear me what's going on, we're going to Court
The Trust in its present form is quite simply a pathetic old boys club. I've said this for years and have been proven right. .
We need Phil to open up and highlight the struggles he faced and who with. We also need Lisa and Cudey to be stronger from within.
They need to call time on the passive failings of the people they sit around a table with and we need a new dynamic to quote our new manager.
It's got to happen but it can only happen with the help of the past and present Board members that have something about them | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 23:37 - Feb 23 with 2976 views | Medici |
Nail on the head.
You should stop pandering to the fragile new appointees who are ever weakening the Trust brand, they clearly offer nothing despite the dull protestations of the weak sheep.
You are rightfully and respectfully on a mission, the weak are not. |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 01:48 - Feb 24 with 2919 views | chad |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:51 - Feb 23 by MattG |
Not sure that's any different to what I've said now, to be honest - that the relationship (or at least how it appeared to be) at that time was a key part of me being able to recommend the deal.
In terms of "majority rules", I'm not sure how else you expect a committee to operate - it's not feasible to engage the entire membership or wider fanbase on every decision. Just because one doesn't agree with the majority doesn't mean the system doesn't work. I do agree, though, that the makeup of the Trust Board doesn't reflect the current views of the fans which probably makes those "majority rules" decisions less palatable. |
But would it be a correct decision to recommend a deal which, even with your incorrect personal assessment of the âseemingly positive nature of the future relationship between the Trust and the Yanksâ, you only considered to be just about palatable to you.
Especially when so much was based on good faith and an expectation that venture capitalists would not behave like venture capitalists, a very naive assumption when their previous behaviour had already clearly underlined what we could expect (even before the threat of legal action was removed by agreement of the deal).
Surely it has been proved to be very much the wrong decision, with hindsight for you and the rest of the Board, but very much with openly repeated foresight from many others.
Even at the pre vote meeting where the deal was being pushed mercilessly to the detriment of those of us raising serious and very rationally based concerns. General concerns about the trustworthiness of the new owners were exemplified by the member who like many others felt they had to follow the Boards recommendation but had no doubt the new owners would do us over (and many at the meeting signalled their agreement with that speaker).
Phil has already underlined the attitude of gratitude for whatever scraps are thrown to us from the top table. We need to fight our corner with equal and greater determination and vigor than our venture capitalist partners will fight for their profits. Rather than meekly bowing to their condescension.
As far as your latter point if less palatable is code for totally unacceptable then I agree, as it is laughable that it can be in any way acceptable that the supporters representatives are not representative of the supporters. It is their duty and they are totally failing in it with an apparent arrogance that seems to make them think they are not accountable and can flout rules like service time limits at will.
I certainly would not expect in an organisation such as ours, that the primary disciplinary offence listed would be for a Board member to publicly express concerns over a majority policy. This is not GCHQ. How the hell can we realistically vote for people who are not even allowed to give their honest views and opinions to us. Total nonsense. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 06:34 - Feb 24 with 2871 views | Phil_S |
| Stadium deal agreed on 23:15 - Feb 23 by TheResurrection |
Phil. I finally thank you for this and giving us again more insight, although I can't really understand everything you're saying, it's the cracked phone probably.
It seems to me that one or two people out of the whole fanbase are making detrimental decisions because they are weak, but also because they think they know best.
And this based on nothing more than the time they've spent serving on the Trust Board. They are the dogs, we are the tails wagging behind them.
I've met Stuart when I met Phil. Yes everyone's right he seemed a lovely chap, very gentle and quiet, and a bit deaf perhaps. He kept on asking me to repeat things in close to him. He knew my father he said and of course is a massive Swans fan,has home and away.
That's the pros. The cons are I couldn't see any grit or real presence there, I couldn't see a man who would say Boo to a goose let alone stand up for the fans at large. Now I don't want to get personal here but sometimes it's clear some people are cut out for some roles and some aren't.
It was the same with the people that interviewed me. Nice guys, of a certain vintage, all very civil and polite but zero energy or charisma or gravitas.
These are not people that would energise others, innovate ideas and get people thinking, or rally troops and motivate. They're also not people that could walk into a Boardroom and say stop, enough of this shit, you're taking the piss, our fans will hear me what's going on, we're going to Court
The Trust in its present form is quite simply a pathetic old boys club. I've said this for years and have been proven right. .
We need Phil to open up and highlight the struggles he faced and who with. We also need Lisa and Cudey to be stronger from within.
They need to call time on the passive failings of the people they sit around a table with and we need a new dynamic to quote our new manager.
It's got to happen but it can only happen with the help of the past and present Board members that have something about them |
Phil. I finally thank you for this and giving us again more insight, although I can't really understand everything you're saying, it's the cracked phone probably.
Very probably but on the laptop this weekend so can pick up on any points.
I think for some there is a view that these are 'tough nosed Americans' and we won't get very far with them and they hold all the aces. That may even all turn out to be true but that shouldn't mean that we just bend over and take whatever scraps they decide to throw us.
The interview a couple of weeks back was typically timed. "We have made mistakes, we have ignored the Trust, we will never do that again" and then just a few short days later they make an announcement that clearly caught the Trust board unaware (of the announcement not the fact that there was discussions) and then we end with what we got this week a "we are looking into it" which is just pointless as the deal is signed.
Let me take you back to this 'misunderstanding' that was claimed under the deal over the amount that was presented and what came on the term sheets. The moment that came to light I asked the question as to "why is this different". It took around two weeks and repeated asking to get the answer to that question. That for me is proof that - at worst - they are trying to deceive and - at best - they are so unconcerned with detail that they don't know the answer. Either one, a misunderstanding it wasn't. And that will be a reason why I never understood after that November meeting why anyone would want to keep going back to negotiate and give them more chances.
I was also told categorically that our addresses and detail over the deal was only handed to them after they were in th public domain. This is not true - indeed before I addressed the members at both consultation forums and also sent the paperwork out it was presented to the owners so they could check the fine detail of it. It was vital that we did not present anything that was incorrect about the detail in the fine print (monetary values etc). Had there been a misunderstanding over the amount then this would have been the time to present it.
I am more than open to admit that I made mistakes as leader of the organisation but I am also at times with an ironic smile on my face as I was doing many of the things behind the scenes that was demanded on here - and via the membership. Even the contentious drag rights we kept trying to get removed on the basis of the forums and the reaction using the "it would make it far more attractive to the members if you removed them" line amongst others. Where it fell down was not making that information widely available (and that was because of the requirement of the board in meetings to keep negotiations behind closed doors)
The day we beat West Brom at the end of last season we were at the stadium until gone 8 trying to get a deal brokered. That wasnt helped mind by having to sit and wait for our majority owners to eat their pre match meal as they had been too busy playing transfers with Gylfi and Llorente as "its key to get these players sorted early this window" - remind me again how that went...
I always believed I was equipped to do largely what I was elected to do but I also believe that there were key times when I needed the board to support certain actions and the more cautious nature of many of the board members that were elected to serve alongside me. For a large part of tenure that cautious nature was probably not an issue - the last 12 months it most definitely was and the decision I made in November had probably been coming for some time. It is really difficult to keep fighting the fight when every time you think you have progress you have people not prepared to do what is needed blocking you en masse.
For things to change within the Trust there needs to be a wide change in the mentality of people who serve on the Trust board. That is either through them changing their own mentality or new people coming in with a different mentality. When the mentality of the likes of Cudey and Lisa etc becomes that of the majority then it will change.
And that isn't my election statement BTW - it's too many words...! | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 08:25 - Feb 24 with 2825 views | monmouth |
Thanks Phil. This is why we have to know what we are voting for, and we never have. Would we have voted them in if we knew who the cockblockers were...who knows, but at least then we get what we deserve. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 08:38 - Feb 24 with 2807 views | MattG |
| Stadium deal agreed on 01:48 - Feb 24 by chad |
But would it be a correct decision to recommend a deal which, even with your incorrect personal assessment of the âseemingly positive nature of the future relationship between the Trust and the Yanksâ, you only considered to be just about palatable to you.
Especially when so much was based on good faith and an expectation that venture capitalists would not behave like venture capitalists, a very naive assumption when their previous behaviour had already clearly underlined what we could expect (even before the threat of legal action was removed by agreement of the deal).
Surely it has been proved to be very much the wrong decision, with hindsight for you and the rest of the Board, but very much with openly repeated foresight from many others.
Even at the pre vote meeting where the deal was being pushed mercilessly to the detriment of those of us raising serious and very rationally based concerns. General concerns about the trustworthiness of the new owners were exemplified by the member who like many others felt they had to follow the Boards recommendation but had no doubt the new owners would do us over (and many at the meeting signalled their agreement with that speaker).
Phil has already underlined the attitude of gratitude for whatever scraps are thrown to us from the top table. We need to fight our corner with equal and greater determination and vigor than our venture capitalist partners will fight for their profits. Rather than meekly bowing to their condescension.
As far as your latter point if less palatable is code for totally unacceptable then I agree, as it is laughable that it can be in any way acceptable that the supporters representatives are not representative of the supporters. It is their duty and they are totally failing in it with an apparent arrogance that seems to make them think they are not accountable and can flout rules like service time limits at will.
I certainly would not expect in an organisation such as ours, that the primary disciplinary offence listed would be for a Board member to publicly express concerns over a majority policy. This is not GCHQ. How the hell can we realistically vote for people who are not even allowed to give their honest views and opinions to us. Total nonsense. |
Taking the last point first, my comments on "majority rules" related to the actual mechanism for voting within the Trust Board - I don't see how else it can work on a practical level. You are now arguing the case for much greater transparency which is a different matter but one I certainly wouldn't disagree with (apologies if I didn't get that from your original post).
In terms of the initial vote on the share sale, I'm not sure it's particularly beneficial going over this again but I'm prepared to hold my hands up again and say that hindsight (on my part if not on yours) has proven the recommendation to have been an error based on a flawed premise, specifically the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks. As soon as it became clear that relationship had changed for the worse, I didn't feel the deal was the same as had been presented and shouldn't therefore be taken forward without at least another consultation. Clearly a majority of others on the Trust Board felt differently.
One other point I would make is that, whilst I acknowledge that you and others raised concerns regarding the deal, others were equally vocal (including on this forum) in arguing that the Trust's shares had been rendered worthless by the actions of the sellers. The sale was seen as a means of realising the value of a proportion of those shares at the same price as the original sale. Of course, this was coupled with things like the drag rights which were reliant on the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks (see above) but to suggest that everyone apart from the Trust Board was anti-deal is a bit misleading. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:19 - Feb 24 with 2779 views | Jinxy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 06:34 - Feb 24 by Phil_S |
Phil. I finally thank you for this and giving us again more insight, although I can't really understand everything you're saying, it's the cracked phone probably.
Very probably but on the laptop this weekend so can pick up on any points.
I think for some there is a view that these are 'tough nosed Americans' and we won't get very far with them and they hold all the aces. That may even all turn out to be true but that shouldn't mean that we just bend over and take whatever scraps they decide to throw us.
The interview a couple of weeks back was typically timed. "We have made mistakes, we have ignored the Trust, we will never do that again" and then just a few short days later they make an announcement that clearly caught the Trust board unaware (of the announcement not the fact that there was discussions) and then we end with what we got this week a "we are looking into it" which is just pointless as the deal is signed.
Let me take you back to this 'misunderstanding' that was claimed under the deal over the amount that was presented and what came on the term sheets. The moment that came to light I asked the question as to "why is this different". It took around two weeks and repeated asking to get the answer to that question. That for me is proof that - at worst - they are trying to deceive and - at best - they are so unconcerned with detail that they don't know the answer. Either one, a misunderstanding it wasn't. And that will be a reason why I never understood after that November meeting why anyone would want to keep going back to negotiate and give them more chances.
I was also told categorically that our addresses and detail over the deal was only handed to them after they were in th public domain. This is not true - indeed before I addressed the members at both consultation forums and also sent the paperwork out it was presented to the owners so they could check the fine detail of it. It was vital that we did not present anything that was incorrect about the detail in the fine print (monetary values etc). Had there been a misunderstanding over the amount then this would have been the time to present it.
I am more than open to admit that I made mistakes as leader of the organisation but I am also at times with an ironic smile on my face as I was doing many of the things behind the scenes that was demanded on here - and via the membership. Even the contentious drag rights we kept trying to get removed on the basis of the forums and the reaction using the "it would make it far more attractive to the members if you removed them" line amongst others. Where it fell down was not making that information widely available (and that was because of the requirement of the board in meetings to keep negotiations behind closed doors)
The day we beat West Brom at the end of last season we were at the stadium until gone 8 trying to get a deal brokered. That wasnt helped mind by having to sit and wait for our majority owners to eat their pre match meal as they had been too busy playing transfers with Gylfi and Llorente as "its key to get these players sorted early this window" - remind me again how that went...
I always believed I was equipped to do largely what I was elected to do but I also believe that there were key times when I needed the board to support certain actions and the more cautious nature of many of the board members that were elected to serve alongside me. For a large part of tenure that cautious nature was probably not an issue - the last 12 months it most definitely was and the decision I made in November had probably been coming for some time. It is really difficult to keep fighting the fight when every time you think you have progress you have people not prepared to do what is needed blocking you en masse.
For things to change within the Trust there needs to be a wide change in the mentality of people who serve on the Trust board. That is either through them changing their own mentality or new people coming in with a different mentality. When the mentality of the likes of Cudey and Lisa etc becomes that of the majority then it will change.
And that isn't my election statement BTW - it's too many words...! |
Phil - a question for you. Is standing for re-election and subsequent chair of the trust something that you are, or would consider? Sadly, I think the Trust does need a complete overhaul (without disrespecting existing board members, and the good work they have historically done). The game, and it's rules, have seemingly changed dramatically in recent times, with the previous owners revealing their hand(s), and the new owners with suspicious objectives, and we have not evolved or reacted accordingly in my view. We are constantly on the back foot, with no intent to get on the front foot it seems! With some of the newly appointed members (with their clear expertise - by the way it won't be long before they walk away unless they are better supported/embraced), and some more enthusiastic and more board-room savvy members we could protect the future of the club more comprehensively.
I, for one, would want you at the helm given your experience, recognition of mistakes made (we all make them) and your clear love of the club, and not what you can get out of it. |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:40 - Feb 24 with 2721 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 06:34 - Feb 24 by Phil_S |
Phil. I finally thank you for this and giving us again more insight, although I can't really understand everything you're saying, it's the cracked phone probably.
Very probably but on the laptop this weekend so can pick up on any points.
I think for some there is a view that these are 'tough nosed Americans' and we won't get very far with them and they hold all the aces. That may even all turn out to be true but that shouldn't mean that we just bend over and take whatever scraps they decide to throw us.
The interview a couple of weeks back was typically timed. "We have made mistakes, we have ignored the Trust, we will never do that again" and then just a few short days later they make an announcement that clearly caught the Trust board unaware (of the announcement not the fact that there was discussions) and then we end with what we got this week a "we are looking into it" which is just pointless as the deal is signed.
Let me take you back to this 'misunderstanding' that was claimed under the deal over the amount that was presented and what came on the term sheets. The moment that came to light I asked the question as to "why is this different". It took around two weeks and repeated asking to get the answer to that question. That for me is proof that - at worst - they are trying to deceive and - at best - they are so unconcerned with detail that they don't know the answer. Either one, a misunderstanding it wasn't. And that will be a reason why I never understood after that November meeting why anyone would want to keep going back to negotiate and give them more chances.
I was also told categorically that our addresses and detail over the deal was only handed to them after they were in th public domain. This is not true - indeed before I addressed the members at both consultation forums and also sent the paperwork out it was presented to the owners so they could check the fine detail of it. It was vital that we did not present anything that was incorrect about the detail in the fine print (monetary values etc). Had there been a misunderstanding over the amount then this would have been the time to present it.
I am more than open to admit that I made mistakes as leader of the organisation but I am also at times with an ironic smile on my face as I was doing many of the things behind the scenes that was demanded on here - and via the membership. Even the contentious drag rights we kept trying to get removed on the basis of the forums and the reaction using the "it would make it far more attractive to the members if you removed them" line amongst others. Where it fell down was not making that information widely available (and that was because of the requirement of the board in meetings to keep negotiations behind closed doors)
The day we beat West Brom at the end of last season we were at the stadium until gone 8 trying to get a deal brokered. That wasnt helped mind by having to sit and wait for our majority owners to eat their pre match meal as they had been too busy playing transfers with Gylfi and Llorente as "its key to get these players sorted early this window" - remind me again how that went...
I always believed I was equipped to do largely what I was elected to do but I also believe that there were key times when I needed the board to support certain actions and the more cautious nature of many of the board members that were elected to serve alongside me. For a large part of tenure that cautious nature was probably not an issue - the last 12 months it most definitely was and the decision I made in November had probably been coming for some time. It is really difficult to keep fighting the fight when every time you think you have progress you have people not prepared to do what is needed blocking you en masse.
For things to change within the Trust there needs to be a wide change in the mentality of people who serve on the Trust board. That is either through them changing their own mentality or new people coming in with a different mentality. When the mentality of the likes of Cudey and Lisa etc becomes that of the majority then it will change.
And that isn't my election statement BTW - it's too many words...! |
Without going into full detail here my biggest issue is the time they've all spent on the Trust. They shouldn't be anywhere near it now and the fact they are, still believing THEY ARE THE TRUST, infuriates me all the more.
Stu, Alan, the two Viv's. Ron your time was up years ago... Leave the Trust please and let someone else have a chance. [Post edited 24 Feb 2018 10:41]
| |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 10:47 - Feb 24 with 2712 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 06:34 - Feb 24 by Phil_S |
Phil. I finally thank you for this and giving us again more insight, although I can't really understand everything you're saying, it's the cracked phone probably.
Very probably but on the laptop this weekend so can pick up on any points.
I think for some there is a view that these are 'tough nosed Americans' and we won't get very far with them and they hold all the aces. That may even all turn out to be true but that shouldn't mean that we just bend over and take whatever scraps they decide to throw us.
The interview a couple of weeks back was typically timed. "We have made mistakes, we have ignored the Trust, we will never do that again" and then just a few short days later they make an announcement that clearly caught the Trust board unaware (of the announcement not the fact that there was discussions) and then we end with what we got this week a "we are looking into it" which is just pointless as the deal is signed.
Let me take you back to this 'misunderstanding' that was claimed under the deal over the amount that was presented and what came on the term sheets. The moment that came to light I asked the question as to "why is this different". It took around two weeks and repeated asking to get the answer to that question. That for me is proof that - at worst - they are trying to deceive and - at best - they are so unconcerned with detail that they don't know the answer. Either one, a misunderstanding it wasn't. And that will be a reason why I never understood after that November meeting why anyone would want to keep going back to negotiate and give them more chances.
I was also told categorically that our addresses and detail over the deal was only handed to them after they were in th public domain. This is not true - indeed before I addressed the members at both consultation forums and also sent the paperwork out it was presented to the owners so they could check the fine detail of it. It was vital that we did not present anything that was incorrect about the detail in the fine print (monetary values etc). Had there been a misunderstanding over the amount then this would have been the time to present it.
I am more than open to admit that I made mistakes as leader of the organisation but I am also at times with an ironic smile on my face as I was doing many of the things behind the scenes that was demanded on here - and via the membership. Even the contentious drag rights we kept trying to get removed on the basis of the forums and the reaction using the "it would make it far more attractive to the members if you removed them" line amongst others. Where it fell down was not making that information widely available (and that was because of the requirement of the board in meetings to keep negotiations behind closed doors)
The day we beat West Brom at the end of last season we were at the stadium until gone 8 trying to get a deal brokered. That wasnt helped mind by having to sit and wait for our majority owners to eat their pre match meal as they had been too busy playing transfers with Gylfi and Llorente as "its key to get these players sorted early this window" - remind me again how that went...
I always believed I was equipped to do largely what I was elected to do but I also believe that there were key times when I needed the board to support certain actions and the more cautious nature of many of the board members that were elected to serve alongside me. For a large part of tenure that cautious nature was probably not an issue - the last 12 months it most definitely was and the decision I made in November had probably been coming for some time. It is really difficult to keep fighting the fight when every time you think you have progress you have people not prepared to do what is needed blocking you en masse.
For things to change within the Trust there needs to be a wide change in the mentality of people who serve on the Trust board. That is either through them changing their own mentality or new people coming in with a different mentality. When the mentality of the likes of Cudey and Lisa etc becomes that of the majority then it will change.
And that isn't my election statement BTW - it's too many words...! |
And the other key point.
This would have been my advice back then, when you were waiting 2 weeks after repeated asking.
After the first time of asking I would've sent strongly worded correspondence that if you hadn't heard back by x time, a damning statement would've been issued to your members and the wider Swansea fanbase. Effectively the gloves are coming off, your choice America.
The Trust has never exerted itself, never shown any courage or balls and that's us, the fans of Swansea City, who let's face it, have never before been afraid of a fight. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:56 - Feb 24 with 2632 views | chad |
| Stadium deal agreed on 08:38 - Feb 24 by MattG |
Taking the last point first, my comments on "majority rules" related to the actual mechanism for voting within the Trust Board - I don't see how else it can work on a practical level. You are now arguing the case for much greater transparency which is a different matter but one I certainly wouldn't disagree with (apologies if I didn't get that from your original post).
In terms of the initial vote on the share sale, I'm not sure it's particularly beneficial going over this again but I'm prepared to hold my hands up again and say that hindsight (on my part if not on yours) has proven the recommendation to have been an error based on a flawed premise, specifically the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks. As soon as it became clear that relationship had changed for the worse, I didn't feel the deal was the same as had been presented and shouldn't therefore be taken forward without at least another consultation. Clearly a majority of others on the Trust Board felt differently.
One other point I would make is that, whilst I acknowledge that you and others raised concerns regarding the deal, others were equally vocal (including on this forum) in arguing that the Trust's shares had been rendered worthless by the actions of the sellers. The sale was seen as a means of realising the value of a proportion of those shares at the same price as the original sale. Of course, this was coupled with things like the drag rights which were reliant on the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks (see above) but to suggest that everyone apart from the Trust Board was anti-deal is a bit misleading. |
Damn Virgin Media
Thanks for the reply Matt
Just to clarify as I would hate to appear to misrepresent the facts, you say ...
âTo suggest that everyone but the Trust Board was anti-deal is a bit misleadingâ
I agree in fact I think it would be totally untrue - but I donât think this was what I said or even implied
Also the argument that the Trust's shares had been rendered worthless by the actions of the sellers was as much an argument for legal action as it was for the deal.
[Post edited 24 Feb 2018 13:21]
| | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 08:33 - Feb 25 with 2445 views | MattG |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:56 - Feb 24 by chad |
Damn Virgin Media
Thanks for the reply Matt
Just to clarify as I would hate to appear to misrepresent the facts, you say ...
âTo suggest that everyone but the Trust Board was anti-deal is a bit misleadingâ
I agree in fact I think it would be totally untrue - but I donât think this was what I said or even implied
Also the argument that the Trust's shares had been rendered worthless by the actions of the sellers was as much an argument for legal action as it was for the deal.
[Post edited 24 Feb 2018 13:21]
|
Took my son to his U10s game yesterday morning and then deliberately stayed out of this place after our game yesterday afternoon, hence the late reply.
My suggestion was based on your statement that "the supporters representatives are not representative of the supporters" - apologies if I misinterpreted.
I agree about the devaluation of shares being as much an argument for legal action as it was for the deal but that in itself shows that the whole thing was a balancing act. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:04 - Feb 25 with 2373 views | Shaky |
There's some seriously weird shit going on in this thread.
Not least of which is the Saviour's ranting and screaming about how Trust board members are basically traitors if they don't unilaterally abandon the doctrine of collective resposibility, which I'm old enough to remember him meekly signing up tp to when he was interviewed for the board last summer. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:33 - Feb 25 with 2356 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:04 - Feb 25 by Shaky |
There's some seriously weird shit going on in this thread.
Not least of which is the Saviour's ranting and screaming about how Trust board members are basically traitors if they don't unilaterally abandon the doctrine of collective resposibility, which I'm old enough to remember him meekly signing up tp to when he was interviewed for the board last summer. |
I don't get it, Shaky.
You've said that change from within is better than change from the outside so when he agrees to join in order to (a) vote and (b) be invited to potentially change from the inside, you criticise.
I'm far from one of Res' biggest fans but he's asking what a lot of us are thinking (but has the balls to do it) and he's put his money where his mouth is (by offering to step forward onto the Board). I've always said that Res makes sense, but his way of saying it isn't the best so it's best to ignore the attitude and concentrate on the content, as a lot of it makes sense. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:09 - Feb 25 with 2317 views | QJumpingJack |
If the Trust had to write a list of their successes and failures over the last 18-24 months, what would the list look like? | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:15 - Feb 25 with 2275 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:33 - Feb 25 by MoscowJack |
I don't get it, Shaky.
You've said that change from within is better than change from the outside so when he agrees to join in order to (a) vote and (b) be invited to potentially change from the inside, you criticise.
I'm far from one of Res' biggest fans but he's asking what a lot of us are thinking (but has the balls to do it) and he's put his money where his mouth is (by offering to step forward onto the Board). I've always said that Res makes sense, but his way of saying it isn't the best so it's best to ignore the attitude and concentrate on the content, as a lot of it makes sense. |
1. I have been consistently arguing for the introduction of transparency and accountability in the Trust for at least 3 years.
2. I criticised the Saviour last summer for caving in to the demands of the Trust to sustain collective responsibility.
3. In light of 2 the Saviour has no business demanding that Lisa and ECB break that principle.
4. The fact that Matt G did so, and got it wrong shows the dangers of caving in to this type of hysterical bullying in a witch hunt environment.
5. My understanding is the list is still not right. [Post edited 25 Feb 2018 14:26]
| |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:32 - Feb 25 with 2249 views | Shaky |
Alternative: swing the board around or else get elected on a specific platform of introducing transparency. Then start taking notes at meetings of who voted which way, and start publishing that record somewhere. [Post edited 25 Feb 2018 14:35]
| |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:52 - Feb 25 with 2214 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:15 - Feb 25 by Shaky |
1. I have been consistently arguing for the introduction of transparency and accountability in the Trust for at least 3 years.
2. I criticised the Saviour last summer for caving in to the demands of the Trust to sustain collective responsibility.
3. In light of 2 the Saviour has no business demanding that Lisa and ECB break that principle.
4. The fact that Matt G did so, and got it wrong shows the dangers of caving in to this type of hysterical bullying in a witch hunt environment.
5. My understanding is the list is still not right. [Post edited 25 Feb 2018 14:26]
|
Both ECB and I did actually break the principle of collective responsibility to an extent by saying that we didn't have access to information.
As an aside, we've now had 20 pages on the Trust's failing to review information it wasn't given. And yet hardly any criticism of the club for not giving information with enough notice.
The actual disagreement here is not that the Trust didn't review information (as it couldn't), but more whether it should publicly criticise the club for not making it available in good time. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
