| Stadium deal agreed 10:01 - Feb 17 with 64645 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 11:36 - Feb 26 with 2480 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:49 - Feb 26 by Uxbridge |
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. |
Who are good people?
But anyway, who cares about that? Fed up of hearing this..
Good, bad, half soaked, nice to their Mam, never misses a birthday.... Not important
Get on with the job....!! |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:44 - Feb 26 with 2465 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:49 - Feb 26 by Uxbridge |
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. |
Ux,
Three questions:
1. Who are the 2 or 3 who are up for re-election please?
2. Also, does anyone ever stand for Secretary or is Nigel Hamer's job for life?
3. Is the Secretary allowed to vote on standard Board issues? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:55 - Feb 26 with 2442 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 01:10 - Feb 26 by TheResurrection |
You're not alone, Matt, he's away with the fairies.
Meanwhile, back in the real world... |
You getting a gratuitous dig in at me at 1am on a Monday morning is presumably a manifestation of my obsession with you, right?
You're so full of shit. [Post edited 26 Feb 2018 12:00]
|  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:59 - Feb 26 with 2436 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 09:49 - Feb 26 by Uxbridge |
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. |
My view is this; as regards the position of the lease i don't think it is a big deal and reasonbable people can disagree.
Legal action is a different matter, with the withdrawal of any offer now rendering that avenue a must.
Are you saying there is still not a majority in favour of legal action? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:18 - Feb 26 with 2422 views | TheResurrection |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:55 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
You getting a gratuitous dig in at me at 1am on a Monday morning is presumably a manifestation of my obsession with you, right?
You're so full of shit. [Post edited 26 Feb 2018 12:00]
|
Another Shakey post about me..
Another edit 😂😂😂 | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:27 - Feb 26 with 2411 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:18 - Feb 26 by TheResurrection |
Another Shakey post about me..
Another edit 😂😂😂 |
You seem unable to distingusih between my attacks on the harebrained, undemocratic, sell-out friendly drivel that frequently flows from your keyboard, and the sort of personal attacks you have been directing at me recently.
It's all you've got, isn't it?
Now for me back to maintaining my dignified silence in the face of your increasingly desperate and hysterical ad hominem attacks. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:27 - Feb 26 with 2413 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:59 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
My view is this; as regards the position of the lease i don't think it is a big deal and reasonbable people can disagree.
Legal action is a different matter, with the withdrawal of any offer now rendering that avenue a must.
Are you saying there is still not a majority in favour of legal action? |
You don't think the stadium thing is a big deal?
How the hell do you know when the Trust haven't even looked at the detail yet? Of course the headlines sound good, but we have absolutely no idea what we're signed up for longer-term.
What's starting to worry me more is the longer we go without the smaller details being spelled out to us, the more I think there's something being hidden. Just like with a dodgy mortgage, the headlines are always pretty but the scam kicks in later on!
I hope I'm wrong. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:35 - Feb 26 with 2408 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:27 - Feb 26 by MoscowJack |
You don't think the stadium thing is a big deal?
How the hell do you know when the Trust haven't even looked at the detail yet? Of course the headlines sound good, but we have absolutely no idea what we're signed up for longer-term.
What's starting to worry me more is the longer we go without the smaller details being spelled out to us, the more I think there's something being hidden. Just like with a dodgy mortgage, the headlines are always pretty but the scam kicks in later on!
I hope I'm wrong. |
I think the council are perfectly able to handle the negotiation of a commercial lease, and that the obvious high profile threat of EU intervention on potential subsidies would be enough to keep them on their toes.
Furthermore, and please correct me if i am wrong, I assume that Lisa is a non-executive director of the listed property company she mentioned. As such I am not sure what she brings to a contract review process that professional advisors no doubt hired by the council did not. [Post edited 26 Feb 2018 12:41]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:47 - Feb 26 with 2395 views | Shaky |
. . However, it is worth stating again that the only dimension in which the lease is in my view important, is as an additional proof that the Trust no longer plays any meaningful role in the management of the club.
It has become a passive financial investor without any influence, and that is quite simply inconsistent with the aims of the Trust.
Time to force that sale. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:50 - Feb 26 with 2386 views | Uxbridge |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:59 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
My view is this; as regards the position of the lease i don't think it is a big deal and reasonbable people can disagree.
Legal action is a different matter, with the withdrawal of any offer now rendering that avenue a must.
Are you saying there is still not a majority in favour of legal action? |
Not at all. I would expect a recommendation either way on that in the coming weeks. As you say, that's an entirely different issue. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:51 - Feb 26 with 2375 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:50 - Feb 26 by Uxbridge |
Not at all. I would expect a recommendation either way on that in the coming weeks. As you say, that's an entirely different issue. |
Ta. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:53 - Feb 26 with 2375 views | Uxbridge |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:44 - Feb 26 by MoscowJack |
Ux,
Three questions:
1. Who are the 2 or 3 who are up for re-election please?
2. Also, does anyone ever stand for Secretary or is Nigel Hamer's job for life?
3. Is the Secretary allowed to vote on standard Board issues? |
Two thirds of the board, not 2-3. Basically anyone who wasn't elected in the last election (which isn't many at the last count), and anyone who was coopted. You could pretty much see an entirely new board next summer if the members were so inclined.
Secretary is voted upon annually. The secretary doesn't have a vote, just like any other "affiliate". Has anyone stood against him? Not during my tenure, but I couldn't comment on previously. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:14 - Feb 26 with 2342 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 12:35 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
I think the council are perfectly able to handle the negotiation of a commercial lease, and that the obvious high profile threat of EU intervention on potential subsidies would be enough to keep them on their toes.
Furthermore, and please correct me if i am wrong, I assume that Lisa is a non-executive director of the listed property company she mentioned. As such I am not sure what she brings to a contract review process that professional advisors no doubt hired by the council did not. [Post edited 26 Feb 2018 12:41]
|
I wouldn't suggest that the legal bods employed won't be able to review contract details Shaky..
The only thing I would say, is that the council's viewpoint will be different potentially to that of the Trust.
The council will aim to ensure the contracts protect them, not whether the deal is potentially risky for the club.
Any review the Trust do, will not be worried about whether, for example, the contracts are clear on responsibility for stadium upkeep (as you say, the legal teams will ensure that's the case), but more whether there is a potential exposure to large outgoings over the term for the club.
That's also where there is a divergence (again potentially) between the Trust and the majority owners. The majority owners' horizons are shorter, as they won't be around in 20 years time. The deal just has to work for them for a relatively short period, until they exit. The risk over the long term is the Trust's concern. Edited to add - by concern I mean concentration, not that there is anything to cause concern. Don't know as yet. [Post edited 26 Feb 2018 13:15]
| | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:39 - Feb 26 with 2288 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:14 - Feb 26 by londonlisa2001 |
I wouldn't suggest that the legal bods employed won't be able to review contract details Shaky..
The only thing I would say, is that the council's viewpoint will be different potentially to that of the Trust.
The council will aim to ensure the contracts protect them, not whether the deal is potentially risky for the club.
Any review the Trust do, will not be worried about whether, for example, the contracts are clear on responsibility for stadium upkeep (as you say, the legal teams will ensure that's the case), but more whether there is a potential exposure to large outgoings over the term for the club.
That's also where there is a divergence (again potentially) between the Trust and the majority owners. The majority owners' horizons are shorter, as they won't be around in 20 years time. The deal just has to work for them for a relatively short period, until they exit. The risk over the long term is the Trust's concern. Edited to add - by concern I mean concentration, not that there is anything to cause concern. Don't know as yet. [Post edited 26 Feb 2018 13:15]
|
Lisa, I think I understand why you might want to do this.
However, if availability of resources dictates it is a choice between reviewing the lease and getting the process of legal action underway, I implore you to prioritise the latter. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:33 - Feb 26 with 2184 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 13:14 - Feb 26 by londonlisa2001 |
I wouldn't suggest that the legal bods employed won't be able to review contract details Shaky..
The only thing I would say, is that the council's viewpoint will be different potentially to that of the Trust.
The council will aim to ensure the contracts protect them, not whether the deal is potentially risky for the club.
Any review the Trust do, will not be worried about whether, for example, the contracts are clear on responsibility for stadium upkeep (as you say, the legal teams will ensure that's the case), but more whether there is a potential exposure to large outgoings over the term for the club.
That's also where there is a divergence (again potentially) between the Trust and the majority owners. The majority owners' horizons are shorter, as they won't be around in 20 years time. The deal just has to work for them for a relatively short period, until they exit. The risk over the long term is the Trust's concern. Edited to add - by concern I mean concentration, not that there is anything to cause concern. Don't know as yet. [Post edited 26 Feb 2018 13:15]
|
. . .I should add that the possibility of the slick operators in Swansea City Council having pulled a fast one on famed vulture investor Steve Kaplan and his hand-picked West Coast Real Estate developer buddy is not one I had hitherto given much thought! | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:05 - Feb 26 with 2151 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:33 - Feb 26 by Shaky |
. . .I should add that the possibility of the slick operators in Swansea City Council having pulled a fast one on famed vulture investor Steve Kaplan and his hand-picked West Coast Real Estate developer buddy is not one I had hitherto given much thought! |
Shakey,
Can't you see that there's always the chance of a win for the Yanks, win for the Council but not a long-term win for the club?
You've got a lot more faith in our council if you think that they wouldn't do whatever necessary to get rid of something that's costing them money and turn it into something that will make them money.
'Hope for the best, prepare for the worst' isn't a bad saying to follow in regards to this little dilemma.
I am actually more convinced than ever that there's something being either hidden or protected by one or both sides (Club and Council).
Why the Trust aren't kicking up a fuss is anyone's guess but it also stinks....badly! | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:18 - Feb 26 with 2127 views | plasjack |
If we are relegated and the present owners sell up, the trust surely will have to start from square one once more to renegotiate terms. |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:26 - Feb 26 with 2102 views | QJumpingJack |
What's the latest with Keefe and Penney court case? | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:32 - Feb 26 with 2086 views | dobjack2 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:18 - Feb 26 by plasjack |
If we are relegated and the present owners sell up, the trust surely will have to start from square one once more to renegotiate terms. |
Why? | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:33 - Feb 26 with 2080 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:26 - Feb 26 by QJumpingJack |
What's the latest with Keefe and Penney court case? |
Judgement hasn’t been handed down yet. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:41 - Feb 26 with 2057 views | waynekerr55 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:33 - Feb 26 by exiledclaseboy |
Judgement hasn’t been handed down yet. |
Any idea on a date for this Clasey? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:42 - Feb 26 with 2056 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:41 - Feb 26 by waynekerr55 |
Any idea on a date for this Clasey? |
Nope. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:42 - Feb 26 with 2056 views | E20Jack |
Did Shaky just say he will keep his dignified silence 
I would hazard a pretty safe guess that Shaky has infected this board with more nonsense, more abuse, more personal attacks, more lies, more tedious crackpot theories than ever before. A complete and utter 3 week melt down.
But this thread is easily ended and the solution easily remedied. Those on the Trust with a strong belief we need a tougher line. Name those with the opposite opinion (it shouldn't be a secret, assuming there is nothing underhand afoot then they would be happy to stand by the opposite opinion anyway).
Next meeting those who wish to oust those members can do so with a vote. The very thing I suggested Xmas time and was told to not go down the drastic route.
We have come to a cross roads. We can keep having the same conversations about how difficult it is being a Trust board member and being outvoted ad infinitum, but the resolution is easy. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 21:30 - Feb 26 with 1993 views | monmouth |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:42 - Feb 26 by E20Jack |
Did Shaky just say he will keep his dignified silence
I would hazard a pretty safe guess that Shaky has infected this board with more nonsense, more abuse, more personal attacks, more lies, more tedious crackpot theories than ever before. A complete and utter 3 week melt down.
But this thread is easily ended and the solution easily remedied. Those on the Trust with a strong belief we need a tougher line. Name those with the opposite opinion (it shouldn't be a secret, assuming there is nothing underhand afoot then they would be happy to stand by the opposite opinion anyway).
Next meeting those who wish to oust those members can do so with a vote. The very thing I suggested Xmas time and was told to not go down the drastic route.
We have come to a cross roads. We can keep having the same conversations about how difficult it is being a Trust board member and being outvoted ad infinitum, but the resolution is easy. |
Been done more or less hasn't it in previous posts? Other than the two new co-opted bods that have gone underground (Christ almighty wasn't one the alleged communications whizzo?). The previous line up was Matt, Phil, Ux versus the rest. The rest are still there. Clasie's added to Ux. Lisa sadly doesn't get a vote.
That all said, it sounds like there is now a majority against further fannying around or dealing with yanko sharks, so the problem might resolve itself. Lets see what the recommendation is on the next step re legal. That'll be before another board election, and is the only thing left that really matters, as the Trust will have no say or input on anything else anyway.
If the vote does go legal you just watch Yanko come out with more meaningless delay tripe of an 'improved shite offer'. If our lot were to go back to the table then we should physically run them out of town. I'm getting ahead of myself here though. lets have the recommendation and the vote. And pdq please. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 11:58 - Feb 27 with 1840 views | Shaky |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:05 - Feb 26 by MoscowJack |
Shakey,
Can't you see that there's always the chance of a win for the Yanks, win for the Council but not a long-term win for the club?
You've got a lot more faith in our council if you think that they wouldn't do whatever necessary to get rid of something that's costing them money and turn it into something that will make them money.
'Hope for the best, prepare for the worst' isn't a bad saying to follow in regards to this little dilemma.
I am actually more convinced than ever that there's something being either hidden or protected by one or both sides (Club and Council).
Why the Trust aren't kicking up a fuss is anyone's guess but it also stinks....badly! |
Of course that is possible, and i would go further and say in any negotiation involving some complexity but not commodities one side is bound to come out ahead.
But in this instance we have the high profile threat of EU scrutiny keeping a lid on the council, while the fact that the Kaplan is clearly a seller in waiting means he can't afford to ignore the long term because LT lease agreements for key fixed assets will without doubt be a focus of any buyer due dilligence.
This situation is also different in so far that the deal paves the way for unlocking new incremental value if everything goes according to plan, from sponsorship, hospitality, etc.
Going over this with a fine toothcomb will probably show one side has come out ahead, but will that be materially so? I personally doubt it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
