| Stadium deal agreed 10:01 - Feb 17 with 64646 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 15:11 - Feb 25 with 2559 views | swancity |
| 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 |
Lots of good points as always. Mainly I love your honesty, saying it as it is. There's not enough of it (honesty) about. It's not asking too much is it. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:16 - Feb 25 with 2549 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:52 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
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. |
Hasn't the Trust learnt yet that they need to publicly ask for something before they have a chance of getting it? As I said, they had a chance when the deal was initially muted in public by the council and club, but didn't say a thing. That was a schoolboy error.
Now, when they weren't given the info or the time to review it, they still come out with a 'blah blah' rubbish statement with nothing to suggest that anything was wrong with the process. If building bridges is not an aim anymore, they could and should have made their point right then. They didn't have to burn down any remaining bridges, but at least position themselves in a better position should they uncover anything unsatisfactory after further inspection from 'specialists' like yourself.
You're right though, the club should have respected the Trust more, but if the Club thought that the Trust was worthy of respect, they would have given them some.
That's how I see it. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:19 - Feb 25 with 2538 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:52 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
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. |
Have I missed something here? Didn’t Pearlman say the Trust were in the loop regarding the deal? I haven’t seen no statement from the Trust denying that, apologies if they have. |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:36 - Feb 25 with 2520 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:16 - Feb 25 by MoscowJack |
Hasn't the Trust learnt yet that they need to publicly ask for something before they have a chance of getting it? As I said, they had a chance when the deal was initially muted in public by the council and club, but didn't say a thing. That was a schoolboy error.
Now, when they weren't given the info or the time to review it, they still come out with a 'blah blah' rubbish statement with nothing to suggest that anything was wrong with the process. If building bridges is not an aim anymore, they could and should have made their point right then. They didn't have to burn down any remaining bridges, but at least position themselves in a better position should they uncover anything unsatisfactory after further inspection from 'specialists' like yourself.
You're right though, the club should have respected the Trust more, but if the Club thought that the Trust was worthy of respect, they would have given them some.
That's how I see it. |
"if the Club thought that the Trust was worthy of respect, they would have given them some. "
I'm not sure that's the case personally. I'm not certain that there is anything the Trust could do that would result in the club being respectful. That's the whole issue. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:40 - Feb 25 with 2511 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:19 - Feb 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
Have I missed something here? Didn’t Pearlman say the Trust were in the loop regarding the deal? I haven’t seen no statement from the Trust denying that, apologies if they have. |
The statement from the Trust made it obvious that being in the loop on the big picture was not the same as being provided with details which the Trust said it hadn't reviewed.
As I've said on several occasions now, it's the details that are important.
Whether the Trust statement cihld have been more forceful to that end? In my opinion, absolutely. But even the statement that was issued made a distinction. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:43 - Feb 25 with 2500 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:36 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
"if the Club thought that the Trust was worthy of respect, they would have given them some. "
I'm not sure that's the case personally. I'm not certain that there is anything the Trust could do that would result in the club being respectful. That's the whole issue. |
I'm not so sure.
There are two things here....
There's obviously the Trust Board and whether the Yanks respect them. I would say that's more than doubtful. I believe there's a huge disrespect for the Trust and it's growing.
Then there's the fans and this is where I'm unsure. They need the fans, don't they? They want to grow commercial earnings, which surely means the fans being on-board?
I honestly believe that if the Yanks thought that the Trust was fully backed by the fans, they would treat the Trust better, even if they didn't respect the people representing the fans. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:44 - Feb 25 with 2497 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:19 - Feb 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
Have I missed something here? Didn’t Pearlman say the Trust were in the loop regarding the deal? I haven’t seen no statement from the Trust denying that, apologies if they have. |
The statement was nowhere near clear enough on the timings. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:11 - Feb 25 with 2442 views | monmouth |
Are we allowed to know who wrote and approved the statement, or is that subject to the Trust law of Omerta? When I say Omerta, I of course mean w*nk.
I hope Lisa and Clase don't end up with horses heads in their beds or sleeping with the fishes. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:29 - Feb 25 with 2425 views | dobjack2 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:52 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
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. |
I apologise if the point has been made somewhere and I have missed it, but because the majority on the trust board appear to be too scared of upsetting the majority owners I have no idea what happened with the timelines. I.e who knew what and when and what they did with the information.
I’m not suggesting that it is easy to deal with the majority owners and those that work for them, far from it, but being tucked up time after time And appearing to be doing nothing about it (apart from forming more sub committees) is embarrassing and damaging.
Get into the media for **** s sake and if the local press aren’t sympathetic go national. Try alternative social media sources, something- anything!
What have the majority on the trust board to fear unless they enjoy being **** on from a great height at regular intervals.
The club was supposedly “by the fans for the fans” when it was more like “all fans are equal but some are more equal than others.” The Trust board needs to be perceived that it is “by the fans for the fans” and not anything else | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:33 - Feb 25 with 2421 views | TheResurrection |
| 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]
|
You're making less and less sense with every passing post.
Also you've become obsessed with me at the expense of said coherence.
Shake, I don't care. I really genuinely don't care. I'm happy with my stance on things. I'm happy enough they're pretty consistent and I'm happy to change my mind if I felt I was wrong or misinterpreted something or if something changes.
The one true constant throughout all this is SCFC and what it means to its fans, like me... Not you. You're the "something weird" that's going on here, you're the Danish 52 year old with the mentality of a pre pubescent teenager that can't let things go and has to feel important, You with the spreadsheets and the photos of library's and expert knowledge of Wikipedia. You....
The Trust needs reform, the Trust needs an injection of youth and energy, the Trust needs to repair it's tattered reputation
The Trust doesn't need some self opinionated Wannabe Financial
Hot Shot looking to take a cut.
Leave this to us fans yeah?
Thanks |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:35 - Feb 25 with 2415 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:32 - Feb 25 by 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]
|
Wow. Genius....
Dear god, he's catching on..... | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:46 - Feb 25 with 2405 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:52 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
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. |
Oh no it's not Lisa and I'm getting a bit fed up of explaining why.
I'm sure you all know the story of the frog and the scorpion and if the Trust, the bloody frog always, continues to give the scorpion a lift across the lily pond then it deserves all it gets.
Please. No more of this passing blame shit.
We've had enough of that to last us a lifetime. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:48 - Feb 25 with 2397 views | MattG |
| 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]
|
Sorry for going back but what did I get wrong? |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:56 - Feb 25 with 2379 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:36 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
"if the Club thought that the Trust was worthy of respect, they would have given them some. "
I'm not sure that's the case personally. I'm not certain that there is anything the Trust could do that would result in the club being respectful. That's the whole issue. |
How about stand up for itself and play a bit of hardball? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:58 - Feb 25 with 2375 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:29 - Feb 25 by dobjack2 |
I apologise if the point has been made somewhere and I have missed it, but because the majority on the trust board appear to be too scared of upsetting the majority owners I have no idea what happened with the timelines. I.e who knew what and when and what they did with the information.
I’m not suggesting that it is easy to deal with the majority owners and those that work for them, far from it, but being tucked up time after time And appearing to be doing nothing about it (apart from forming more sub committees) is embarrassing and damaging.
Get into the media for **** s sake and if the local press aren’t sympathetic go national. Try alternative social media sources, something- anything!
What have the majority on the trust board to fear unless they enjoy being **** on from a great height at regular intervals.
The club was supposedly “by the fans for the fans” when it was more like “all fans are equal but some are more equal than others.” The Trust board needs to be perceived that it is “by the fans for the fans” and not anything else |
Finally, some sense...
Excellent post. Lisa. Take real good heed. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:24 - Feb 25 with 2327 views | QJumpingJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 15:36 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
"if the Club thought that the Trust was worthy of respect, they would have given them some. "
I'm not sure that's the case personally. I'm not certain that there is anything the Trust could do that would result in the club being respectful. That's the whole issue. |
The Americans have not had any respect for the Trust from day one due to the fact how Jenkins and the former board treated The Trust in the sale in late 2015/Spring 2016. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:37 - Feb 25 with 2288 views | monmouth |
| Stadium deal agreed on 17:24 - Feb 25 by QJumpingJack |
The Americans have not had any respect for the Trust from day one due to the fact how Jenkins and the former board treated The Trust in the sale in late 2015/Spring 2016. |
And because Jenkins, Dineen and the rest will have told them that they are a total irrelevance that can safely be ignored because they are a load of retirred committee type jerks easily manipulated by being made to feel important. Because they were, and have shown nothing since to prove that is not true.
Here's another idea that will never see the light of day, obviously. But a co-opted executive strategic Trust Board Committee of Lisa, Clase, Matt, Phil, Chris and MacDonald (as he's apparently our SD, someone said?) that is not dead from the neck up or a bumbling poodle without a tail.
This group to decide Trust strategy. ie people, that actually know something about business strategy, are fans for the current era, and aren't retired non achievers.
Then the rest of them can get on with raffles, disabled activities and all the other worthy local initiatives in the competence of schoolteachers, shopkeepers and the like. Altough if disabled parking is anything to go by, maybe competence isn't the word I'm looking for. These people certainly shouldn't be deciding the future of supporters influence in Swansea City. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:18 - Feb 25 with 2145 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:48 - Feb 25 by MattG |
Sorry for going back but what did I get wrong? |
You mean following your initial edit?
To be clear I have no first hand knowledge of this, but it is just not my understanding based on what I have pieced together.
But I honestly don't want to get in to details, becasue i think pointing the finger at 2/3rds of the board is a very bad idea indeed when - according to Sumbler - half of that consitituency is a swing vote.
How anybody genuinely thinks scapegoating everybody in one basket is a good idea conducive to changing the position, is quite simply beyond me. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:19 - Feb 25 with 2144 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Stadium deal agreed on 14:52 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
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. |
Uhhh no, people are asking why the Trust didn't kick up a fuss when they knew this was imminent. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:49 - Feb 25 with 2113 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:19 - Feb 25 by Bobby_Fischer |
Uhhh no, people are asking why the Trust didn't kick up a fuss when they knew this was imminent. |
The understanding was that information would be provided when negotiations were finalised for review. The receipt of that information was the bit that was 'imminent'.
The Trust was not part of the negotiating team. Why not? No idea. Before my time. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:53 - Feb 25 with 2108 views | MattG |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:18 - Feb 25 by Shaky |
You mean following your initial edit?
To be clear I have no first hand knowledge of this, but it is just not my understanding based on what I have pieced together.
But I honestly don't want to get in to details, becasue i think pointing the finger at 2/3rds of the board is a very bad idea indeed when - according to Sumbler - half of that consitituency is a swing vote.
How anybody genuinely thinks scapegoating everybody in one basket is a good idea conducive to changing the position, is quite simply beyond me. |
Still not completely sure what you're referring to unless it's the list of names that Res posted in the discussion on the share sale?
Assuming that's it, my edit was simply to confirm who was listed in the minutes of that meeting - a couple of the names that Res suggested weren't present but others were.
If it's something else then you'll need to be clearer, sorry. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:47 - Feb 25 with 2008 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:49 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
The understanding was that information would be provided when negotiations were finalised for review. The receipt of that information was the bit that was 'imminent'.
The Trust was not part of the negotiating team. Why not? No idea. Before my time. |
So when the information wasn't provided as was understood, they did what exactly? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 01:10 - Feb 26 with 1957 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:53 - Feb 25 by MattG |
Still not completely sure what you're referring to unless it's the list of names that Res posted in the discussion on the share sale?
Assuming that's it, my edit was simply to confirm who was listed in the minutes of that meeting - a couple of the names that Res suggested weren't present but others were.
If it's something else then you'll need to be clearer, sorry. |
You're not alone, Matt, he's away with the fairies.
Meanwhile, back in the real world... | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:49 - Feb 26 with 1834 views | Uxbridge |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:11 - Feb 25 by monmouth |
Are we allowed to know who wrote and approved the statement, or is that subject to the Trust law of Omerta? When I say Omerta, I of course mean w*nk.
I hope Lisa and Clase don't end up with horses heads in their beds or sleeping with the fishes. |
It's unlikely. They're good people (and that's not a bad thing) with different views. They may get tutted at though.
That recent statement to the members, and posts from board members on here, rather displays where the Trust board is at the moment ... pretty fundamentally divided in terms of the approach that needs to be taken, but the statement shows where the majority view is at. That's not news though, fundamentally that hasn't changed since the autumn.
Obviously I don't like it, and given Clase and Lisa's posts on here, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they are of a similar view. Phil and Matt have also said this was a large factor in their reasons for resigning. However, like it or not, the majority were democratically elected onto the board. There was a window to change that structure last month but the AGM passed without incident. There's another window in a few months time when 2/3 of the board are up for election/co-option. That's the only way the balance will change. Until it does, the Trust won't consistently be as aggressive in its actions as many on here want. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:49 - Feb 26 with 1834 views | Lord_Bony |
| Stadium deal agreed on 22:47 - Feb 25 by Bobby_Fischer |
So when the information wasn't provided as was understood, they did what exactly? |
They did nothing for the following reasons.
A) They could no be arsed
B) They did not understand the huge consequences of being left out of these kind of negotiations.
Either one PROCRASTINATION is the name of the game. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
