| Stateside Jack's meeting with club 19:01 - Feb 15 with 33170 views | swanskid95 |
Seems a little fishy to me, looks like the trust have been shafted here..
|  | | |  |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 21:56 - Feb 15 with 2468 views | DrGonzo |
Yanks meddling in affairs in another country. Surprise surprise. |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 22:23 - Feb 15 with 2393 views | Dyfnant |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:10 - Feb 15 by _ |
It certainly isn't surprising when one side is completely inept at the the old piss up in a brewery. 3 years of nothing. |
Bit like your bum chum Jenkins then. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 22:23 - Feb 15 with 2393 views | SkettyJack |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:04 - Feb 15 by Landore_Jack |
Is having another voice in the club a bad thing? Especially when you consider these are Swans fans who care about the club. |
Why have they accepted a Non-Disclosure agreement?
What have they discussed that cant be shared? After all they are not the owners of the football club, they are a supporters club. The trust being owners will (should!) have access to much more confidential information such as financials etc, so a NDA would be more palatable, but not in this case. The Stateside Jacks should not be party to any confidential information. They are supporters like you and I.
Can you imagine The Glazers having secret conversations with the London Reds or whatever?? |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 23:02 - Feb 15 with 2334 views | Landore_Jack |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 22:23 - Feb 15 by SkettyJack |
Why have they accepted a Non-Disclosure agreement?
What have they discussed that cant be shared? After all they are not the owners of the football club, they are a supporters club. The trust being owners will (should!) have access to much more confidential information such as financials etc, so a NDA would be more palatable, but not in this case. The Stateside Jacks should not be party to any confidential information. They are supporters like you and I.
Can you imagine The Glazers having secret conversations with the London Reds or whatever?? |
All the club is doing is allowing fans from the american comittee to have an official route to share their views and concerns.
[Post edited 15 Feb 2019 23:25]
|  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 23:20 - Feb 15 with 2304 views | jackrmee |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:36 - Feb 15 by ItchySphincter |
In fairness they may be well intentioned and a useful ally but that statement is badly worded and misguided, unless it is, as it comes across, a sycophantic attempt to curry favour with the owners and rattle the fans. They have no right to represent Swansea City fans to the owners. |
Of course they have a right to represent as fans of Swansea City. They are fans.
What if someone decided to start a "Llanelli Jacks" group and the leaders just so happened to get along with someone high up at the club...would it be wrong for them to speak to that person/people about THEIR concerns?
Just because this group is overseas doesn't mean they aint fans.
The way I see it, if someone can get some conversation out of the yanks, happy days. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 23:30 - Feb 15 with 2286 views | AguycalledJack |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 23:20 - Feb 15 by jackrmee |
Of course they have a right to represent as fans of Swansea City. They are fans.
What if someone decided to start a "Llanelli Jacks" group and the leaders just so happened to get along with someone high up at the club...would it be wrong for them to speak to that person/people about THEIR concerns?
Just because this group is overseas doesn't mean they aint fans.
The way I see it, if someone can get some conversation out of the yanks, happy days. |
Or the American owners are trying to lessen the chance of bad publicity on their side of the pond. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 23:49 - Feb 15 with 2253 views | _ |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 22:23 - Feb 15 by Dyfnant |
Bit like your bum chum Jenkins then. |
Whoa, didn't expect that from you... OK.... |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 23:51 - Feb 15 with 2252 views | Jacket |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:12 - Feb 15 by _ |
I don't think that's fair at all. They've been far more in the Americans face than the stiff upper lip Trust lot. |
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 00:03 - Feb 16 with 2233 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
I welcome this development, let's build a team and get the Mexicans to pay for it.
Yankee Doodle Do! |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 00:39 - Feb 16 with 2215 views | longlostjack |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 23:30 - Feb 15 by AguycalledJack |
Or the American owners are trying to lessen the chance of bad publicity on their side of the pond. |
Nail on head. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 01:14 - Feb 16 with 2192 views | swan65split |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 00:39 - Feb 16 by longlostjack |
Nail on head. |
YAhooo |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 01:16 - Feb 16 with 2189 views | swan65split |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 00:03 - Feb 16 by JACKMANANDBOY |
I welcome this development, let's build a team and get the Mexicans to pay for it.
Yankee Doodle Do! |
Or is it Get the Swans to pay for DC?
Yankee Doodle Do! | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 03:22 - Feb 16 with 2157 views | Tummer_from_Texas |
Marc and Jonathan have issued a follow up, largely to try to disclose what they can, and try to explain why there are things they can't share.
[Post edited 16 Feb 2019 3:23]
|  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 05:29 - Feb 16 with 2120 views | stAteSwan |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:32 - Feb 15 by Tummer_from_Texas |
I don't think the SJ are portraying themselves as representing our whole fanbase. They are just diehard supporters representing a small (but growing) chunk of the worldwide fanbase, and I'm sure that is clear to everyone involved in their conversations.
I can understand the uneasiness over this, but they are not trying to step on the Supporters Trust's toes.
This twitter statement came directly from Marc and Jonathan, the co-leaders of the Stateside Jacks. I know both of them, and they are great guys - Jonathan is a Welsh expat living in California who has been a Jack all his life. |
Tummer, I agree that I don't think as a group there was any intention to step on toes. Obviously the Supporters Trust was notified etc. But even you should be able to agree that Marc and Jonathan worded the first statement very poorly. Considering the current legal action of the Trust, and the opinion of supporters towards the ownership, any statement needed to be worded very carefully.
I don't believe for a second there was any intention of making it sound like the SSJ knew something other supporters didn't. But with the ownership insisting the Trust sign a NDA, it really looks bad when an international supporters group chooses to gain that same info under the same terms.
The follow up statement was much better, but I hope the damage isn't already done. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 05:45 - Feb 16 with 2115 views | Tummer_from_Texas |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 05:29 - Feb 16 by stAteSwan |
Tummer, I agree that I don't think as a group there was any intention to step on toes. Obviously the Supporters Trust was notified etc. But even you should be able to agree that Marc and Jonathan worded the first statement very poorly. Considering the current legal action of the Trust, and the opinion of supporters towards the ownership, any statement needed to be worded very carefully.
I don't believe for a second there was any intention of making it sound like the SSJ knew something other supporters didn't. But with the ownership insisting the Trust sign a NDA, it really looks bad when an international supporters group chooses to gain that same info under the same terms.
The follow up statement was much better, but I hope the damage isn't already done. |
Absolutely. Like I said I fully understand all this uneasiness over the way this was done. To be honest, I'm sure I'd feel very differently if I didn't know them personally.
Good to see Jonathan has had a talk to clear up some things about this with Andy G, the Trust vice chair.
[Post edited 16 Feb 2019 5:47]
| |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 06:49 - Feb 16 with 2088 views | Swanjaxs |
My message to the Stateside Jacks is this ... "you lay down with dogs you end up getting fleas" |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 07:15 - Feb 16 with 2063 views | jackrmee |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 05:29 - Feb 16 by stAteSwan |
Tummer, I agree that I don't think as a group there was any intention to step on toes. Obviously the Supporters Trust was notified etc. But even you should be able to agree that Marc and Jonathan worded the first statement very poorly. Considering the current legal action of the Trust, and the opinion of supporters towards the ownership, any statement needed to be worded very carefully.
I don't believe for a second there was any intention of making it sound like the SSJ knew something other supporters didn't. But with the ownership insisting the Trust sign a NDA, it really looks bad when an international supporters group chooses to gain that same info under the same terms.
The follow up statement was much better, but I hope the damage isn't already done. |
Again, I understand and applaud the Trust for not signing the NDA. Surely if one person in the trust knows, then the board need to all know at least. I'm happy with that decision.
However, that doesn't stop anyone else asking for that info and agreeing to an NDA. Their members are not in the position of the trust and it's not as important for the details to be discussed among board members, as they don't need to think about any legal process.
In fact, it's fine for anyone to speak to the owners and ask them questions and know more than the trust and agree to an NDA, whether they be Swans fans or not. It's their own prerogative. The more people that know, the more likely it is to get into the public domain.
If it nothing gets leaked no-one is any worse off for it. At least we will have a little better understanding and whoever has extra info can at least say something, and maybe hint whether we need to be extremely worried or not? | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 07:22 - Feb 16 with 2047 views | pencoedjack |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:32 - Feb 15 by Tummer_from_Texas |
I don't think the SJ are portraying themselves as representing our whole fanbase. They are just diehard supporters representing a small (but growing) chunk of the worldwide fanbase, and I'm sure that is clear to everyone involved in their conversations.
I can understand the uneasiness over this, but they are not trying to step on the Supporters Trust's toes.
This twitter statement came directly from Marc and Jonathan, the co-leaders of the Stateside Jacks. I know both of them, and they are great guys - Jonathan is a Welsh expat living in California who has been a Jack all his life. |
Define diehard |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 07:24 - Feb 16 with 2048 views | Swanjaxs |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 07:15 - Feb 16 by jackrmee |
Again, I understand and applaud the Trust for not signing the NDA. Surely if one person in the trust knows, then the board need to all know at least. I'm happy with that decision.
However, that doesn't stop anyone else asking for that info and agreeing to an NDA. Their members are not in the position of the trust and it's not as important for the details to be discussed among board members, as they don't need to think about any legal process.
In fact, it's fine for anyone to speak to the owners and ask them questions and know more than the trust and agree to an NDA, whether they be Swans fans or not. It's their own prerogative. The more people that know, the more likely it is to get into the public domain.
If it nothing gets leaked no-one is any worse off for it. At least we will have a little better understanding and whoever has extra info can at least say something, and maybe hint whether we need to be extremely worried or not? |
Kaplan and Levine are no mugs, the only titbits getting leaked to the Stateside Jacks will be for their own benifit... cut the head off the snake would be my advice 👠[Post edited 16 Feb 2019 7:25]
| |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 08:02 - Feb 16 with 2006 views | 3swan |
I’ve no doubt the SSJ had the discussion for the right reasons and with the best intentions but I also firmly believe that no new information would have been given to them by the board members.
I would be extremely surprised if the information not available to S Mc without a NDA would be given to a supporters group, and the wording of things being kept private does not cover it.
We’re all frustrated with how communication and the ongoing off field issues are affecting the club and can understand the SSJ wanting to try something different.
With how things have panned out this far I would ask the SSJ to be very wary of how things progress, as in my mind this is just being done from the owner’s side as a PR exercise and that they don’t just get used in the bigger picture | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 08:03 - Feb 16 with 2003 views | DrGonzo |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 05:45 - Feb 16 by Tummer_from_Texas |
Absolutely. Like I said I fully understand all this uneasiness over the way this was done. To be honest, I'm sure I'd feel very differently if I didn't know them personally.
Good to see Jonathan has had a talk to clear up some things about this with Andy G, the Trust vice chair.
[Post edited 16 Feb 2019 5:47]
|
What a bunch of nonces, they can do one too. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 08:21 - Feb 16 with 1971 views | Kilkennyjack |
I think all supporters groups should disengage immediately.
Its tough love, but it works. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 08:44 - Feb 16 with 1930 views | Uxbridge |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 05:45 - Feb 16 by Tummer_from_Texas |
Absolutely. Like I said I fully understand all this uneasiness over the way this was done. To be honest, I'm sure I'd feel very differently if I didn't know them personally.
Good to see Jonathan has had a talk to clear up some things about this with Andy G, the Trust vice chair.
[Post edited 16 Feb 2019 5:47]
|
If you're going to reproduce one of my tweets to back up your argument, probably best to do the one before this, which actually gave my view on the proposed way forward. I don't think this is a good idea at all. The Trust needs to be the focal point for the fans at the club, and it's patently obvious this has the potential to further drive a wedge therez which is not particularly advisable if we're looking to find a solution to the current impasse prior to the. Members vote next month.
What I will say is that the timing is very interesting by the club. Maybe it's genuine, maybe it's tactical. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 08:50 - Feb 16 with 1913 views | BillyChong |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 08:44 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
If you're going to reproduce one of my tweets to back up your argument, probably best to do the one before this, which actually gave my view on the proposed way forward. I don't think this is a good idea at all. The Trust needs to be the focal point for the fans at the club, and it's patently obvious this has the potential to further drive a wedge therez which is not particularly advisable if we're looking to find a solution to the current impasse prior to the. Members vote next month.
What I will say is that the timing is very interesting by the club. Maybe it's genuine, maybe it's tactical. |
Probably tactical, but they’ve still managed to score another own goal | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 09:05 - Feb 16 with 1889 views | Uxbridge |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 08:50 - Feb 16 by BillyChong |
Probably tactical, but they’ve still managed to score another own goal |
I feel a bit for the SSJ lads on this. Intentions seem entirely honourable and I think they genuinely thought they had informed the Trust about this meeting happening (breakdown in comms there between two of the reps involved). News to either Phil or I and the broader board though.
However, if this had been discussed with the Trust between the meeting and the statement, no doubt would have advised against accepting some sort of special role of reps of the fans at the club, especially with the questionable timing. Not that the Trust has ever issued a statement which has been pilloried of course, but if anyone could have predicted the reaction it was us.
I think there's a broader question here. Speaking for myself, I'm all for as much fan engagement as possible, particularly the meaningful sort. The Trust clearly needs to be the focal point for that at the club though. Tactics may be at play, or not, I don't know. I'm sure the club are desperate to improve their image, although obviously the best way to do that would be to bring issues to a head with the Trust. Until that happens, it's pretty much impossible I'd say.
How the Trust works with the fanbase in general and supporters groups in particular is a good question and I'm sure we'll discuss that with groups such as the SSJ in the near future. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
