| Stadium deal agreed 10:01 - Feb 17 with 64272 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 18:59 - Feb 18 with 1916 views | Phil_S |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:57 - Feb 18 by londonlisa2001 |
I also told you last summer you may recall...
 |
Yeah but you said it much nicer last month  |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:01 - Feb 18 with 1906 views | Phil_S |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:58 - Feb 18 by MoscowJack |
Phil, it shouldn't have to be 'upon request' though, should it? (edit: just noticed that you replied to that while I was typing this...)
Information like this needs to be shared to the whole Board and then they can decide whether it's the Board's responsibility to share it with the members.
One other thing - please name names. Let's all stop pussyfooting around who's in it for themselves and who's there to do the job they asked to be elected to. It's only your opinion and one that people can choose to believe or not, but I think many people (like ECB, Lisa, Matt, you and Ux) need to not feel wrong about speaking your mind entirely, especially when there are instances like this lease agreement that stink to high-heaven.
Lisa's a board member of a FTSE 500 real estate FFS....why the hell wouldn't they (or the club for that matter!!!) lean on her experience for guidance? It doesn't make ANY sense at all.
Let's see name put in print and let's see them defend themselves.
I'll start - Nigel Hamer - what did he know about the stadium lease? With the obvious (tenuous or not) links to the Americans, wouldn't this constitute a massive conflict of interest?
Stu Mac - known to me as a very well-respected and honest person, but why is he so silent as Trust Rep? Why isn't there even a monthly update from him, apart from the 20-30 words in the Trust AGM minutes? Is he being asked to be quiet, or is it a choice??
Come on everyone.....if they don't respect their own fellow Board members enough to inform them of such major decisions, shouldn't they be questioned???? [Post edited 18 Feb 2018 19:00]
|
The first line - I badly worded that, I think you probably knew what I meant!
Third paragraph - names of who I think values directors box privileges ahead of representing the fans do you mean? | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:02 - Feb 18 with 1899 views | Lord_Bony |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:46 - Feb 18 by Phil_S |
As I said back in November, the terms of the deal presented to us told me clearly that the relationship with the Americans was - and always would be - non existent at worst, subject to lip service at best.
Nothing I have seen in the past 3 months tells me that things have changed any more. Yet the board clearly wanted to continue working with them and trying to build a non existent relationship
It does seem that for some - and I say this with a heavy heart - the ability to sit in the directors box on a matchday is far more important than doing the job for which they should be elected. Take a look on a matchday and you will know who those people are.
I also firmly believe that the silence on this subject is more than a coincidence - I wonder if silence is complicit agreement or has been requested |
"the ability to sit in the director's box on a matchday is far more important than doing the job for which they should be elected. Take a look on a matchday and you will know who those people are. "
Well, that is just wrong plain and simple.
It is clear there are members of the board sitting there that do not have The Trusts or the fans interests at heart. They have been fobbed off and bought.
I say again there is no one at the helm making decisive action to defend SCFC on behalf of the fans.
There needs to be one or two new people put in place with authority to make clear decisions on behalf of the Trust and the club. I get the feeling there is a lot of laziness and complacency when it comes to moving forward. Basically, they cant be arsed.
Why was not the Trust involved with the lease negotiations...this is so important to the future of the club?
Why arent they creating holy hell for being left out of this?
Sorry to say, but I feel there is COLLUSION going on with the Trust and the "investors".
Not good, things have got to change ...and quickly.
Anyone not doing a proper job should be removed and replaced with people who have the interests of SCFC FIRST.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:03 - Feb 18 with 1895 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:59 - Feb 18 by Phil_S |
Yeah but you said it much nicer last month |
Ha! I'm just nicer in person  |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:05 - Feb 18 with 1881 views | longlostjack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:02 - Feb 18 by Lord_Bony |
"the ability to sit in the director's box on a matchday is far more important than doing the job for which they should be elected. Take a look on a matchday and you will know who those people are. "
Well, that is just wrong plain and simple.
It is clear there are members of the board sitting there that do not have The Trusts or the fans interests at heart. They have been fobbed off and bought.
I say again there is no one at the helm making decisive action to defend SCFC on behalf of the fans.
There needs to be one or two new people put in place with authority to make clear decisions on behalf of the Trust and the club. I get the feeling there is a lot of laziness and complacency when it comes to moving forward. Basically, they cant be arsed.
Why was not the Trust involved with the lease negotiations...this is so important to the future of the club?
Why arent they creating holy hell for being left out of this?
Sorry to say, but I feel there is COLLUSION going on with the Trust and the "investors".
Not good, things have got to change ...and quickly.
Anyone not doing a proper job should be removed and replaced with people who have the interests of SCFC FIRST.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Great post. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:06 - Feb 18 with 1869 views | Jackfath |
I don’t get any of this and am not too proud to admit it. Could someone finally spill the beans and let me (and I assume others who are equally clueless) what’s going on?
Who is (or are) the “bad eggs” on the trust board. Why are they acting like this? What are they getting from it? Why aren’t they being held accountable? Why are they allowed to do things like this time and time again? |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:08 - Feb 18 with 1864 views | Swanzay |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:53 - Feb 18 by Phil_S |
Valid point but I suspect you knew what I meant. Just worded it badly.
Ironically Alan was one of those who used to get most upset if he ever felt things were being kept from him (which they never were)
But one thing I learned is that Alan is also one of those people who used to enjoy the final say - I won't put anyone under pressure but it was always hard when there was a statement to be made.
Not saying that is right BTW as I suspect you and I will be in the same place on that one |
It stinks, absolutely stinks. The fact that some Trust board members are privy to information that others are not. The fact they dont disclose that information to other board members.
The Trust are an absolute mockery and disgrace of what a trust board should be, absolutely shameful! AGAIN!
It raises the question, either is Stu M in bed with the Americans or is the Trust an afterthought again.... |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:12 - Feb 18 with 1832 views | max936 |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:08 - Feb 18 by Swanzay |
It stinks, absolutely stinks. The fact that some Trust board members are privy to information that others are not. The fact they dont disclose that information to other board members.
The Trust are an absolute mockery and disgrace of what a trust board should be, absolutely shameful! AGAIN!
It raises the question, either is Stu M in bed with the Americans or is the Trust an afterthought again.... |
This is the beginning of the Trust becoming a busted flush time may even have passed on that one though, they seem completely toothless either that or they want it that way, smiles and kisses when the Yanks are here no doubt. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:13 - Feb 18 with 1830 views | BillyChong |
| Stadium deal agreed on 16:30 - Feb 18 by londonlisa2001 |
Answering a few questions that have been raised in one reply rather than lots:
- yes, I knew that the lease transfer was in the offing as it had been discussed on here a few times.
- any discussions that may have been had around that by the Trust happened before my time. There have been no discussions about it since I have been involved.
- I believed that when details were finalised, they would be passed to the Trust in their role as shareholder and director of the club.
- I assumed that those details and the documentation would be circulated to the Trust board and affiliates for detailed review, discussion and ultimately a vote on what position the Trust should take.
- Since nothing has been mentioned in my time, I assumed that there was nothing imminent. There was absolutely no reason to suppose otherwise.
To reiterate, I found out about this by seeing this thread. I also received an email to that effect from the Trust Chair (after having already seen it on here).
I believe that some members of the Trust board received details and documentation - this was not passed on to me, nor to Andrew. I also believe that the timing took people by surprise, which may account for the lack of discussion and review and circulation of documents beforehand.
I sent a rather strongly worded email to the whole of the Trust board yesterday as soon as I saw what had happened. I also asked to see any documents that were in circulation. As of now, I haven't received any documents nor had any response to my email. I know that Andrew also sent an email.
I have no knowledge of the deal other than what has been said on here. I have read the club statement on the official website as well, and I note that it says "Swans take sole control of the Stadium Management Company" which is interesting, as I had understood from what was said on here previously that the lease was moving to the club, whereas that wording suggests that the lease has remained with Stadco, but the Swans have now acquired Stadco.
Does that matter? Who knows. With property deals, the devil is always in the detail. Length of lease, break clauses, initial rental, rent review frequency and terms, reversion rights, etc etc.
I sit on the board of a FTSE property company, and so know how complex these agreements can be.
I am very unhappy that I was not provided with any info. Not least because, as can be seen on here, there is an expectation that I would be, and that I am somehow to blame for not knowing what is happening.
It's all very well Chris, saying that I, or Andrew, should demand information. Don't you think that we haven't? I have been challenging Board members over any number of issues fairly constantly since becoming involved. I can also say categorically that Andrew has done the same. Some of what I say has an effect, some, quite transparently does not.
All I can do is either decide to say 'f*ck it' and walk away now, or to remain involved and try to have an impact. At the moment, I've chosen the latter as I remain adamant that the Trust need to take action against the sale and I'm doing everything I can to influence that. Hopefully people will see some updates on that over the next few weeks as was promised to members previously.
On this issue, in summary, I believe that the Trust now need to review all documentation very carefully and make a public statement about whether the deal is good, bad or indifferent for the club. But that's just my opinion. Others may disagree, and they may hold the majority view. |
Disgraceful that not all of the trust board were kept in the loop. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:18 - Feb 18 with 1807 views | MattG |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:08 - Feb 18 by Swanzay |
It stinks, absolutely stinks. The fact that some Trust board members are privy to information that others are not. The fact they dont disclose that information to other board members.
The Trust are an absolute mockery and disgrace of what a trust board should be, absolutely shameful! AGAIN!
It raises the question, either is Stu M in bed with the Americans or is the Trust an afterthought again.... |
My recollection from Trust Board meetings was that any information regarding the stadium / lease was only ever provided by Stu as part of his Supporter Director report.
The fact that Lisa and Andrew knew nothing of yesterday's events says that either (a) the Yanks kept the Trust as much in the dark as possible or (b) the information that they gave the Trust wasn't shared with, in Lisa's case at least, probably the single person best placed to comment on it.
Either way, it's a clusterfcuk of epic proportions. |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:21 - Feb 18 with 1788 views | Swanzay |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:12 - Feb 18 by max936 |
This is the beginning of the Trust becoming a busted flush time may even have passed on that one though, they seem completely toothless either that or they want it that way, smiles and kisses when the Yanks are here no doubt. |
Simply I assume that at least Stu M knew about this, but yet again the silence from the Trust is deafening...
Absolute shambles! | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:28 - Feb 18 with 1763 views | airedale |
Is the business that has the lease agreement the same one that the Supporters Trust is involved with? |  | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:45 - Feb 18 with 1712 views | Swanzay |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:18 - Feb 18 by MattG |
My recollection from Trust Board meetings was that any information regarding the stadium / lease was only ever provided by Stu as part of his Supporter Director report.
The fact that Lisa and Andrew knew nothing of yesterday's events says that either (a) the Yanks kept the Trust as much in the dark as possible or (b) the information that they gave the Trust wasn't shared with, in Lisa's case at least, probably the single person best placed to comment on it.
Either way, it's a clusterfcuk of epic proportions. |
So what did he know and when and more importantly when and why did he chose not to disclose this information to the rest of the board and why?
What is Stu's position regarding this and what is he playing it?
Disgraceful actions from a so called chairperson! | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:49 - Feb 18 with 1689 views | Jackfath |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:06 - Feb 18 by Jackfath |
I don’t get any of this and am not too proud to admit it. Could someone finally spill the beans and let me (and I assume others who are equally clueless) what’s going on?
Who is (or are) the “bad eggs” on the trust board. Why are they acting like this? What are they getting from it? Why aren’t they being held accountable? Why are they allowed to do things like this time and time again? |
Anyone? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:55 - Feb 18 with 1663 views | Swanzay |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:49 - Feb 18 by Jackfath |
Anyone? |
Quite simply the Trust have been asleep at the wheel for a number of years! | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:57 - Feb 18 with 1652 views | Jackfath |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:55 - Feb 18 by Swanzay |
Quite simply the Trust have been asleep at the wheel for a number of years! |
Yes, I know that, I think everybody does. However, that doesn't answer my questions which I feel are pertinent? | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:01 - Feb 18 with 1635 views | MoscowJack |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:01 - Feb 18 by Phil_S |
The first line - I badly worded that, I think you probably knew what I meant!
Third paragraph - names of who I think values directors box privileges ahead of representing the fans do you mean? |
Third paragraph - yes, Phil, that's what we would like to know. I think it's about time that the truth came out.
My personal view on the Director's Box and Boardroom is that I believe that it's a lovely perk (at times!) that should be rotated and shared throughout the Trust, but primarily used for 'working the room' if possible.
If there's business to be done and a certain Trust Board member needs to be there, then he/she should be there.
If there's someone new to the Trust Board, they should be taken to the Boardroom and Director's Box to meet the faces that he/she hears about daily or weekly. I'd love to put a hidden camera on Lisa in that room!!
Also, if there's someone within the Trust membership, who's gone 'above and beyond', they should be rewarded and this should really be encouraged.
I know that these 'rewards' become tedious for some, after a while, but either it's work (Trust work) or it's reward (for the harder workers).
I also think the Chairman and Supporters Rep should always aim to be present, or at least have someone represent them, but represented no more than about 1/3 of the time.
The last think we want to see is people taking on roles just to get access to the posh bars but that's what I expect is happening. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:03 - Feb 18 with 1625 views | Swanzay |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:57 - Feb 18 by Jackfath |
Yes, I know that, I think everybody does. However, that doesn't answer my questions which I feel are pertinent? |
I agree, where do you start, to me its became a badge of honour, to many people liking the Im on the Trust board without any impact! Phil S aside. | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:04 - Feb 18 with 1622 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 19:06 - Feb 18 by Jackfath |
I don’t get any of this and am not too proud to admit it. Could someone finally spill the beans and let me (and I assume others who are equally clueless) what’s going on?
Who is (or are) the “bad eggs” on the trust board. Why are they acting like this? What are they getting from it? Why aren’t they being held accountable? Why are they allowed to do things like this time and time again? |
I dint think there are “bad eggs” on the Trust board but there are markedly differing views on approach and various other things. None of them/us are bad people.
I also think (and this isn’t aimed at you, Fath) that people need to be very careful when using words like “collusion” with all the associated connotations. It’s not helpful and bordering on libellous. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:05 - Feb 18 with 1616 views | monmouth |
| Stadium deal agreed on 18:46 - Feb 18 by Phil_S |
As I said back in November, the terms of the deal presented to us told me clearly that the relationship with the Americans was - and always would be - non existent at worst, subject to lip service at best.
Nothing I have seen in the past 3 months tells me that things have changed any more. Yet the board clearly wanted to continue working with them and trying to build a non existent relationship
It does seem that for some - and I say this with a heavy heart - the ability to sit in the directors box on a matchday is far more important than doing the job for which they should be elected. Take a look on a matchday and you will know who those people are.
I also firmly believe that the silence on this subject is more than a coincidence - I wonder if silence is complicit agreement or has been requested |
Christ that third paragraph. That makes them worse than Jenkins in my eyes. People like this make me very angry indeed. Bastards should be tarred and feathered. Wales is full of empty committee tossers like this. Puffed up lumps of shit. We need them called out, and then kicked out. And pdq as they will try and make sure that they retain their pathetic status.
That really shocked me, to have that confirmed by someone that would actually know it to be happening. I thought they were just incompetent, not corrupt. |  |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:05 - Feb 18 with 1614 views | Jackfath |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:04 - Feb 18 by exiledclaseboy |
I dint think there are “bad eggs” on the Trust board but there are markedly differing views on approach and various other things. None of them/us are bad people.
I also think (and this isn’t aimed at you, Fath) that people need to be very careful when using words like “collusion” with all the associated connotations. It’s not helpful and bordering on libellous. |
I'll get back in my box and switch the lights off. | |
| |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:07 - Feb 18 with 1609 views | Phil_S |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:01 - Feb 18 by MoscowJack |
Third paragraph - yes, Phil, that's what we would like to know. I think it's about time that the truth came out.
My personal view on the Director's Box and Boardroom is that I believe that it's a lovely perk (at times!) that should be rotated and shared throughout the Trust, but primarily used for 'working the room' if possible.
If there's business to be done and a certain Trust Board member needs to be there, then he/she should be there.
If there's someone new to the Trust Board, they should be taken to the Boardroom and Director's Box to meet the faces that he/she hears about daily or weekly. I'd love to put a hidden camera on Lisa in that room!!
Also, if there's someone within the Trust membership, who's gone 'above and beyond', they should be rewarded and this should really be encouraged.
I know that these 'rewards' become tedious for some, after a while, but either it's work (Trust work) or it's reward (for the harder workers).
I also think the Chairman and Supporters Rep should always aim to be present, or at least have someone represent them, but represented no more than about 1/3 of the time.
The last think we want to see is people taking on roles just to get access to the posh bars but that's what I expect is happening. |
OK let me answer it a slightly different way
On several occasions I suggested that we should stop our presence in the boardroom. At times there was support from Stu Mac, nearly always support from Andy and Matt (in his time) but that was about it (although it was too early to think what Dave, Roger or Sian thought) and obviously this was before the likes of Lisa an Cudey were added to the board.
I spent a reasonable time there last season but didn't attend a single home game in the box this season (I dont think anyway) with the logic last year being that it was key that we had a representation at games whilst we tried to get a relationship working.
For me the moment it became clear the relationship was never going to happen was the time we should pull out but the line "We have earned this" was trotted out quite often... | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:08 - Feb 18 with 1602 views | Phil_S |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:04 - Feb 18 by exiledclaseboy |
I dint think there are “bad eggs” on the Trust board but there are markedly differing views on approach and various other things. None of them/us are bad people.
I also think (and this isn’t aimed at you, Fath) that people need to be very careful when using words like “collusion” with all the associated connotations. It’s not helpful and bordering on libellous. |
I would agree with this. I dont see anyone as a bad egg but I think you probably share my frustrations as to what impact/expertise is added... | | | |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:09 - Feb 18 with 1598 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stadium deal agreed on 20:01 - Feb 18 by MoscowJack |
Third paragraph - yes, Phil, that's what we would like to know. I think it's about time that the truth came out.
My personal view on the Director's Box and Boardroom is that I believe that it's a lovely perk (at times!) that should be rotated and shared throughout the Trust, but primarily used for 'working the room' if possible.
If there's business to be done and a certain Trust Board member needs to be there, then he/she should be there.
If there's someone new to the Trust Board, they should be taken to the Boardroom and Director's Box to meet the faces that he/she hears about daily or weekly. I'd love to put a hidden camera on Lisa in that room!!
Also, if there's someone within the Trust membership, who's gone 'above and beyond', they should be rewarded and this should really be encouraged.
I know that these 'rewards' become tedious for some, after a while, but either it's work (Trust work) or it's reward (for the harder workers).
I also think the Chairman and Supporters Rep should always aim to be present, or at least have someone represent them, but represented no more than about 1/3 of the time.
The last think we want to see is people taking on roles just to get access to the posh bars but that's what I expect is happening. |
On directors’ box attendance there’s a regular offer for other board members to attend as the guest of the supporter director and I believe non-board Trust members have also been invited in the past, although I can’t be sure of that. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
