| Trust Update... 20:34 - May 18 with 27472 views | marchamjack |
CONFIDENTIAL
This update is being sent to you as a registered member of Swansea City Supporters’ Society Limited, which is also known as the ‘Swansea City Supporters’ Trust’ (‘Trust’). If you are not a member of the Trust, please do not read it. If you are a member, please do not share it or pass it on to others. On the advice of our lawyers, we need to state that nothing in this update is, or is intended as, a waiver of legal professional privilege or any other type of privilege.
In January 2018 the majority owners of Swansea City decided to ‘put on hold’ indefinitely the ongoing discussions on the previously proposed deal relating to the part sale of the Trust’s shareholding in Swansea City Football 2002 Limited, which (through another company) owns the Football Club. With no indication as to whether the deal could be resurrected in the future, the Trust engaged further specialist legal advice in order to determine the next steps that could be taken to best protect the interests of the Trust and, therefore, our members. It will be recalled that we have previously reported that initial advice from Queen’s Counsel (a senior lawyer) was taken last year.
As a result, the Trust and our legal advisers have carried out a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the 2016 sale of a controlling interest in the Club and the impact of these events on the Trust and our shareholding. This involved going back to 2001/2002, when the Club was saved from bankruptcy by the Trust and others, and establishing the relevant factual history and developments from then until the present day. Many people and sources had to be consulted to achieve this and the exercise has only been completed within the last few days.
Our lawyers have today sent (by electronic means or post) to the Club and its shareholders a detailed letter, setting out a number of legal claims on the part of the Trust, including complaints as to the very negative impact the sale and related matters have had on the Trust’s position as a shareholder. The letter and its schedules extend to some 60 pages.
On advice from our lawyers, and in accordance with Court guidelines, the Trust has offered to enter into a formal ‘mediation’ process with the majority owners and others, in order to seek to resolve these claims and complaints. The aim is to seek a provisional agreement to settle past differences, with a view to moving ahead together with the task of rebuilding the Club and returning it to top level football. Any such provisional agreement would be put to members for approval, by way of a consultation.
Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which relevant parties seek to resolve disputes with the assistance of a trained independent and impartial mediator. The mediator cannot impose a solution, but uses his or her skills to bring the parties together. The letter that has been sent proposes that mediation takes place in early July, to allow time for responses to be provided to the letter. While it is a voluntary process, mediation is increasingly being seen by courts as a necessary first step before any formal court proceedings are taken and costs sanctions can be applied for unreasonably failing to mediate. The Trust is duty bound to explore all available legal avenues to protect the interests of the Trust and our members. If mediation were refused or the process proved unsuccessful, and if Trust members support such action, future court proceedings are possible.
If a potential resolution is achieved via the mediation process, it will be set out in a binding, written settlement agreement. However, we can assure our members that any agreement will not be finalised unless it is approved by Trust members as part of a formal consultation exercise.
Members should be aware, however, that if the offer of formal mediation is accepted, that it is a confidential process. This means that the Trust Board will be limited in what we are able to report during the mediation process, unless or until a provisional agreement is reached (or alternative options are identified) on which members can be consulted.
We will update members as soon as we are able to provide further information.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team
|  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |  |
| Trust Update... on 11:22 - May 19 with 2936 views | Highjack |
| Trust Update... on 11:04 - May 19 by Shaky |
Well let me say i have never, ever been involved in any mediation. In fact in any contracts I negotiate always try to insist on disputes being resolved by experts as opposed to via arbitration.
However, from what I remember of you you are involved in construction. Here you have detailed specifications, draws, plans, etc, and disputes will require precise and exhaustive documentation. Furthermore contract disputes are practically the norm.
In this instance I simply do not believe demonstrating the strength of the Trust's case requires anything remotely resembling 60 pages. |
Perhaps it’s sixty pages because they used a big font? |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 11:33 - May 19 with 2899 views | Jackfath |
| Trust Update... on 11:22 - May 19 by Highjack |
Perhaps it’s sixty pages because they used a big font? |
Comic Sans! |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 12:33 - May 19 with 2836 views | swanforthemoney |
| Trust Update... on 11:33 - May 19 by Jackfath |
Comic Sans! |
Smart arse strikes again |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Trust Update... on 12:41 - May 19 with 2813 views | Jackfath |
| Trust Update... on 12:33 - May 19 by swanforthemoney |
Smart arse strikes again |
Smart arse?
Jesus some of you need to lighten up a bit! | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 12:59 - May 19 with 2761 views | MattG |
| Trust Update... on 11:04 - May 19 by Shaky |
Well let me say i have never, ever been involved in any mediation. In fact in any contracts I negotiate always try to insist on disputes being resolved by experts as opposed to via arbitration.
However, from what I remember of you you are involved in construction. Here you have detailed specifications, draws, plans, etc, and disputes will require precise and exhaustive documentation. Furthermore contract disputes are practically the norm.
In this instance I simply do not believe demonstrating the strength of the Trust's case requires anything remotely resembling 60 pages. |
Arbitration involve an independent expert reviewing the positions of both sides - not sure if you meant to say Mediation again? And, again from my experience, contract disputes in construction that need settling by Arbitration or some higher tribunal are far from the norm - most issues are dealt with within the provisions of the contract.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the size of the submission - with supporting information such as formal statements and meeting minutes, I can quite easily see it stretching to 60 pages, particularly given the legal profession's tendency to split everything into a multitude of paragraphs with double spacing between every line. |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 13:06 - May 19 with 2739 views | AndyNak |
| Trust Update... on 10:33 - May 19 by Yossarian |
Yes, but in good faith they did and they’re being slaughtered for it by people who know feck all but just want to heckle from the sidelines. There’s always some..... |
Agreed but I meant I personally wouldn’t have shared it on here or publicly, didn’t mean I wouldn’t have shared it if I was on the board |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 13:23 - May 19 with 2685 views | wobbly |
Good to see the first steps to legal action finally be taken.
Its a strange reaction on here. I thought this was what everyone was agitating for? |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 13:24 - May 19 with 2676 views | longlostjack |
| Trust Update... on 13:23 - May 19 by wobbly |
Good to see the first steps to legal action finally be taken.
Its a strange reaction on here. I thought this was what everyone was agitating for? |
This |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Update... on 14:12 - May 19 with 2583 views | harryhpalmer |
the arbitration is not binding. It is to get the parties together to try and resolve the issue without going to court, under the Tory's new legislation.
And it is all to avoid having to pay costs whether the Trust wins or loses. If they go to Court and win, but avoided the arbitration, they could still get hit by the loser's costs if they hadn't tried arbitration.
So it is now up to Kaplan to enter this precurser, in a timely fashion. If he doesn't then the Trust can go straight to Court and have that threat firmly off their backs, as it would be the Americans who would have sabotaged Arbitration, and they could be liable to the Trust's cost regardless of the result.
And while Shaky says the lawyers are the only winners. that's not quite right if the Trust gets awarded their costs. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 14:33 - May 19 with 2538 views | wobbly |
| Trust Update... on 14:12 - May 19 by harryhpalmer |
the arbitration is not binding. It is to get the parties together to try and resolve the issue without going to court, under the Tory's new legislation.
And it is all to avoid having to pay costs whether the Trust wins or loses. If they go to Court and win, but avoided the arbitration, they could still get hit by the loser's costs if they hadn't tried arbitration.
So it is now up to Kaplan to enter this precurser, in a timely fashion. If he doesn't then the Trust can go straight to Court and have that threat firmly off their backs, as it would be the Americans who would have sabotaged Arbitration, and they could be liable to the Trust's cost regardless of the result.
And while Shaky says the lawyers are the only winners. that's not quite right if the Trust gets awarded their costs. |
It’s mediation, not arbitration? | | | |
| Trust Update... on 15:09 - May 19 with 2460 views | monmouth |
| Trust Update... on 14:33 - May 19 by wobbly |
It’s mediation, not arbitration? |
It would be nice to have a real expert view on all this. My understanding was always that arbitration is binding and mediation not, but I’m stretching.
And by expert, I mean someone that knows, not someone that thinks they know. We’ve heard from too many of those types. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 15:16 - May 19 with 2442 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Trust Update... on 15:09 - May 19 by monmouth |
It would be nice to have a real expert view on all this. My understanding was always that arbitration is binding and mediation not, but I’m stretching.
And by expert, I mean someone that knows, not someone that thinks they know. We’ve heard from too many of those types. |
Read the penultimate para of the OP, this is covered there. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 15:48 - May 19 with 2378 views | monmouth |
| Trust Update... on 15:16 - May 19 by exiledclaseboy |
Read the penultimate para of the OP, this is covered there. |
Ta....that seems so long ago now... | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 16:19 - May 19 with 2319 views | cymrojack |
| Trust Update... on 15:16 - May 19 by exiledclaseboy |
Read the penultimate para of the OP, this is covered there. |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 12:00]
|  |
| Gwynedd & Swansea - Veteran of Morriston Boys Club |
| |
| Trust Update... on 16:25 - May 19 with 2297 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 13:23 - May 19 by wobbly |
Good to see the first steps to legal action finally be taken.
Its a strange reaction on here. I thought this was what everyone was agitating for? |
The problem is that the communication specifically says the "aim is. . moving ahead together with the task of rebuilding the Club and returning it to top level football"
Which clearly precludes legal action to force a sale.
So which is it?
We realistically have no idea, and the whole process has in effect been kicked into touch again for an indeterminate period of time.
Right? |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 17:59 - May 19 with 2180 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Trust Update... on 13:23 - May 19 by wobbly |
Good to see the first steps to legal action finally be taken.
Its a strange reaction on here. I thought this was what everyone was agitating for? |
Indeed.
A number of posts on the first couple of pages appear to be from people who didn't read the update but were hell bent on Trust bashing whatever they said. [Post edited 19 May 2018 19:17]
|  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 19:00 - May 19 with 2085 views | herbie |
| Trust Update... on 20:58 - May 18 by PozuelosSideys |
So the Trust now look to litigation when the value of their shareholding is at its lowest in almost a decade?
Nice work plebs |
Shares wouldn't necessarily be valued at current value though. If claim is based on unfair prejudice it is likely to be the time of the prejudicial act(s). I deal in these types of disputes all the time as a commercial litigation partner. I don't know all the facts but don't think I would have offered mediation at the current time. It looks really weak to be honest. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:48 - May 19 with 1978 views | Shaky |
I have done a little further research on all this, and i can find no reference that mediation should be offered "in accordance with Court guidelines". Happy to be corrected on that if somebody has a reference.
What I have found is increasing reference to the use of mediation, following a judgement in 2010 and based on EU guidelines.
The key point seems to be that if a party refuses to enter into mediation, even if they win the subsequent case costs can be awarded against them.
No doubt the Trust is naturally cautious, but that situation certainly does not apply at present and as such there seems to have been no need to offer mediation.
Furthermore, given the serious negative financial implications of refusing to enter into mediation, I don't see how Kaplan & Co can decline.
So it looks like whether by accident or design the Trust have in effect forced a new round of negotiations.
How will that go?
We'll have no idea cos it is more hush-hush, double-secret stuff, not to be revealed until the 60 pager has been hashed out.
Who's going to give me odds it will be another piss-poor settlement agreement? | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:49 - May 19 with 1969 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 16:19 - May 19 by cymrojack |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 12:00]
|
And sorry, you are who exactly, scolding Trust Board members and telling them what they can and can not do? | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 21:02 - May 19 with 1933 views | Wingstandwood |
| Trust Update... on 20:48 - May 19 by Shaky |
I have done a little further research on all this, and i can find no reference that mediation should be offered "in accordance with Court guidelines". Happy to be corrected on that if somebody has a reference.
What I have found is increasing reference to the use of mediation, following a judgement in 2010 and based on EU guidelines.
The key point seems to be that if a party refuses to enter into mediation, even if they win the subsequent case costs can be awarded against them.
No doubt the Trust is naturally cautious, but that situation certainly does not apply at present and as such there seems to have been no need to offer mediation.
Furthermore, given the serious negative financial implications of refusing to enter into mediation, I don't see how Kaplan & Co can decline.
So it looks like whether by accident or design the Trust have in effect forced a new round of negotiations.
How will that go?
We'll have no idea cos it is more hush-hush, double-secret stuff, not to be revealed until the 60 pager has been hashed out.
Who's going to give me odds it will be another piss-poor settlement agreement? |
I hope the Trust plays hardball because its more than obvious now that if you treat the Yanks, Jenkins and sell-outs with kindness they then?....Percieve that kindness as weakness.
It beggars belief that the Yanks had the audacity to backtrack.
The Trust take on the Yanks should be....."Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 21:15 - May 19 with 1907 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 21:02 - May 19 by Wingstandwood |
I hope the Trust plays hardball because its more than obvious now that if you treat the Yanks, Jenkins and sell-outs with kindness they then?....Percieve that kindness as weakness.
It beggars belief that the Yanks had the audacity to backtrack.
The Trust take on the Yanks should be....."Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". |
On the face of it the decision to pull out of the last settlement seems completely irrational since it was an extremely good deal for them.
Hard to see any other interpretation than they were very cocksure the Trust could not get their act together. And perhaps they were right! | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 21:20 - May 19 with 1888 views | majorraglan |
Mate of mine as going through a divorce and the solicitors recommended mediation as the starting point for resolving their financial sues instead of leaving the solicitors sort it.
Personally, as a starting point I think going to mediation is a sensible, if it doesn’t work at least the Trust can show it tried. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 21:31 - May 19 with 1849 views | Shaky |
| Trust Update... on 21:20 - May 19 by majorraglan |
Mate of mine as going through a divorce and the solicitors recommended mediation as the starting point for resolving their financial sues instead of leaving the solicitors sort it.
Personally, as a starting point I think going to mediation is a sensible, if it doesn’t work at least the Trust can show it tried. |
This is not a divorce case though.
As i see it the merits of the case don't hinge on establishing the facts but rather on the interpretation of points of law.
Under the circumstances did jenkins' et al owe a duty of care to the Trust to protect their interests as shareholders?
And that is something for a judge to decide.
Unless there actually is a requirement to submit to mediation I have not found, I think this move is a mistake.
But one I can easily imagine has occurred because nobody was probably asking hard questions of the lawyers allowing them to run amok. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 21:49 - May 19 with 1803 views | majorraglan |
| Trust Update... on 21:31 - May 19 by Shaky |
This is not a divorce case though.
As i see it the merits of the case don't hinge on establishing the facts but rather on the interpretation of points of law.
Under the circumstances did jenkins' et al owe a duty of care to the Trust to protect their interests as shareholders?
And that is something for a judge to decide.
Unless there actually is a requirement to submit to mediation I have not found, I think this move is a mistake.
But one I can easily imagine has occurred because nobody was probably asking hard questions of the lawyers allowing them to run amok. |
Appreciate it’s not a divorce, but the principle is to try and resolve your differences before embarking on costly litigation.
You maybe right on the lack of hard questions, I would hope though that there are people connected with the Trust who can provide that guidance, but maybe there isn’t. Anyway, we will have to see what happens. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 21:52 - May 19 with 1789 views | cymrojack |
| Trust Update... on 20:49 - May 19 by Shaky |
And sorry, you are who exactly, scolding Trust Board members and telling them what they can and can not do? |
[Post edited 10 Jun 2021 12:01]
| |
| Gwynedd & Swansea - Veteran of Morriston Boys Club |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
