| Stateside Jack's meeting with club 19:01 - Feb 15 with 33195 views | swanskid95 |
Seems a little fishy to me, looks like the trust have been shafted here..
|  | | |  |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:09 - Feb 17 with 1386 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:02 - Feb 17 by swan65split |
The irony and double standards from him is unbelievable, any credibility and trust in him and the Aberdare joker has gone.
Theyve shot their bolt |
Double standards? Can you be specific please, you are also resorting to the sweeping generalisation in order to get your accusation passed.
Where have I displayed double standards and how exactly? |  | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:10 - Feb 17 with 1388 views | Chief |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:07 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
Yes. If I make an accusation I am very specific as I am confident in my convictions that if pushed on it and can defend that position. |
So that's another post where you've typed stuff but said nothing, let alone contributing to the topic of the thread. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:13 - Feb 17 with 1367 views | Jackfath |
I have to agree with E20 on the issue of the Private Bookface group. I said it at the time, how this can be seen as a proactive move to a fanbase who need to join up seems very odd. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:15 - Feb 17 with 1362 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:10 - Feb 17 by Chief |
So that's another post where you've typed stuff but said nothing, let alone contributing to the topic of the thread. |
How have you read that and come to the conclusion I have said nothing.
In that post so told you that if I am to make an accusation then I am specific and direct and asked you, and others, to do the same.
Specifics are vital and if they are enforced then 90% of hostility gets wiped out in a second because 9 times out of 10 people resort to silly insults and insinuations they simply cannot back up. Take Daps’ double standards post as a prime example, he has no idea what he means but typed it as he was lashing out (ironically after telling people to stop).
In your post you accused “people” of losing credibility by being “biased” yet didn’t say who or how. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:15 - Feb 17 with 1366 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 09:58 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
I’m still not understanding ECB.
You seem to be saying the private group is designed to have more information than the public one. I don’t see how that can be anything other than a pre meditated attempt to hide certain things from the general fan - whether that is to inventory a monetary return isn’t really relevant. That information being leaked on here or in the public group also isn’t relevant - unless you are saying it’s leaked by Trust board members.
I think it’s fairly obvious the Trust selectively hides information. I fully agree that votes should be conducted for the membership but the Trust was created by, and for, the whole fanbase and any information held in these private member only platforms should be available to the whole fanbase. |
You’re creating a straw man. Again. Rhys, whose idea this was, planned t have “premium content” on the members only group. This was designed, whether you agree with it or not, to incentivise people to join. The “premium content” envisaged was stuff like videos and q and a sessions with the chair and supporter director etc. For various reasons, that stuff hasn’t happened and the two groups carry much the same info except that the open one is much busier. There is no information on the members only group that won’t be put in the open group unless legal advice dictates otherwise. You’re entitled to your view that the trust uses this group to “hide” info from non members but you’re wrong. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:17 - Feb 17 with 1354 views | Jackfath |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:15 - Feb 17 by exiledclaseboy |
You’re creating a straw man. Again. Rhys, whose idea this was, planned t have “premium content” on the members only group. This was designed, whether you agree with it or not, to incentivise people to join. The “premium content” envisaged was stuff like videos and q and a sessions with the chair and supporter director etc. For various reasons, that stuff hasn’t happened and the two groups carry much the same info except that the open one is much busier. There is no information on the members only group that won’t be put in the open group unless legal advice dictates otherwise. You’re entitled to your view that the trust uses this group to “hide” info from non members but you’re wrong. |
Then for transparency, should it be deleted? | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:17 - Feb 17 with 1356 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:13 - Feb 17 by Jackfath |
I have to agree with E20 on the issue of the Private Bookface group. I said it at the time, how this can be seen as a proactive move to a fanbase who need to join up seems very odd. |
I’ve explained the rationale. I can see the logic behind that rationale but I can also understand your (very consistent) view on it. | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:17 - Feb 17 with 1355 views | Chief |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:15 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
How have you read that and come to the conclusion I have said nothing.
In that post so told you that if I am to make an accusation then I am specific and direct and asked you, and others, to do the same.
Specifics are vital and if they are enforced then 90% of hostility gets wiped out in a second because 9 times out of 10 people resort to silly insults and insinuations they simply cannot back up. Take Daps’ double standards post as a prime example, he has no idea what he means but typed it as he was lashing out (ironically after telling people to stop).
In your post you accused “people” of losing credibility by being “biased” yet didn’t say who or how. |
So again, what does this post have to do with the SSJ meeting / call with the owners exactly? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:18 - Feb 17 with 1350 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:17 - Feb 17 by Jackfath |
Then for transparency, should it be deleted? |
I don’t have a strong view either way to be honest. I don’t use Facebook much. | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:22 - Feb 17 with 1322 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:15 - Feb 17 by exiledclaseboy |
You’re creating a straw man. Again. Rhys, whose idea this was, planned t have “premium content” on the members only group. This was designed, whether you agree with it or not, to incentivise people to join. The “premium content” envisaged was stuff like videos and q and a sessions with the chair and supporter director etc. For various reasons, that stuff hasn’t happened and the two groups carry much the same info except that the open one is much busier. There is no information on the members only group that won’t be put in the open group unless legal advice dictates otherwise. You’re entitled to your view that the trust uses this group to “hide” info from non members but you’re wrong. |
So will this private Facebook group cease to exist now then, considering there is no extra information on there?
It was a ridiculous idea in the first place and the fact it was actually implemented (and still in activity), regardless of motivation - shows the absolute lack of thought and bullishness behind these things. You surely can see how it looks? Similar bullishness and ridiculous implementation behind the vote, the recommendation and ballot process all of which had similar sensible opposition at the time.
Let’s hope that private group is abolished and these accusations can be knocked on the head then. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:24 - Feb 17 with 1319 views | Jackfath |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:18 - Feb 17 by exiledclaseboy |
I don’t have a strong view either way to be honest. I don’t use Facebook much. |
I don’t use it at all. 
But for those who waste hours of their lives stalking their neighbours or ex girlfriends, one forum would be better. | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:24 - Feb 17 with 1316 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:17 - Feb 17 by Chief |
So again, what does this post have to do with the SSJ meeting / call with the owners exactly? |
It was a reply to your post, not the OP or topic in general, specifically your post. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:24 - Feb 17 with 1318 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:22 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
So will this private Facebook group cease to exist now then, considering there is no extra information on there?
It was a ridiculous idea in the first place and the fact it was actually implemented (and still in activity), regardless of motivation - shows the absolute lack of thought and bullishness behind these things. You surely can see how it looks? Similar bullishness and ridiculous implementation behind the vote, the recommendation and ballot process all of which had similar sensible opposition at the time.
Let’s hope that private group is abolished and these accusations can be knocked on the head then. |
As I said to Fath, I can fully understand the arguments both for and against a members’ only group and indeed wider members only content. As far as I know there are no plans to do away with the second Facebook group. | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:25 - Feb 17 with 1312 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:17 - Feb 17 by Jackfath |
Then for transparency, should it be deleted? |
Of course it should. Whether it will be though remains to be seen. My guess is no. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:32 - Feb 17 with 1304 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 09:54 - Feb 17 by exiledclaseboy |
By the way, if the Stateside Jacks signed the same NDA that the club wanted the Trust to sign, they’ve already broken it simply by acknowledging publicly that the conversation happened. [Post edited 17 Feb 2019 9:55]
|
And also by acknowledging the existence of an NDA. | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:43 - Feb 17 with 1272 views | Darran |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 20:41 - Feb 16 by jasper_T |
It's Levien and Kaplan's fault that "actual fans" are frothing at the mouth and sending death threats to a supporters group after a phone call now?
If people are that easily manipulated into tearing each other to pieces then they probably deserve to be marginalised and ignored. |
I can’t remember anyone being angry when T2C posted a death threat to Huw Jenkins in this thread.
The Mods edited it out but it appears T2C has re-edited it now as a death threat to me.
https://planetswans.fansnetwork.co.uk/forum/184939/3283322/huw-jenkins-youre-not |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:47 - Feb 17 with 1259 views | Brynmill_Jack |
Oh dear, another thread that’s been extended beyond need inevitably by “Mr Look at me - i need your attention “. FFS |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:55 - Feb 17 with 1228 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:47 - Feb 17 by Brynmill_Jack |
Oh dear, another thread that’s been extended beyond need inevitably by “Mr Look at me - i need your attention “. FFS |
So I should ignore all the responses to me and tell people I am not getting involved in a discussion with them because it annoys you that my view resonates with many people?
Yes Brynnie, ok. Maybe try taking up gardening? | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:02 - Feb 17 with 1216 views | phact0rri |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 09:58 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
I’m still not understanding ECB.
You seem to be saying the private group is designed to have more information than the public one. I don’t see how that can be anything other than a pre meditated attempt to hide certain things from the general fan - whether that is to inventory a monetary return isn’t really relevant. That information being leaked on here or in the public group also isn’t relevant - unless you are saying it’s leaked by Trust board members.
I think it’s fairly obvious the Trust selectively hides information. I fully agree that votes should be conducted for the membership but the Trust was created by, and for, the whole fanbase and any information held in these private member only platforms should be available to the whole fanbase. |
how is "premium content" look at as "secret information traveling between the board and the trust"? For me it sounds like videos and interviews and stuff... *shrugs*
And this isn't the same as having secret meetings, announcing them, and the not being able to talk about whatever was discussed.
For me this entire situation is a very clumsy PR stunt. And I'd not be surprised to learn that nothing was discussed, and the meeting involved a couple interns from DC United.
What bothers me is any supporter,acting as a PR wing for a board that is killing our club. It would have been better if they didn't mention anything at all, instead of "oh good things were said and they are trying to fix everything, so keep faith".
And I love that people in america love Swansea City Football club. As an american and a welshman I find this whole trend to be fantastic. What I don't love is people using americans love of the football club to promote some twisted agenda. And that is my problem.
I don't know what was said and what offered SSJ to make such statements. But more than not, but if I was hazarding a guess I'd say their channel of communication and speaking up to who ever it is they are able to speak to, is being paid for, by this awful commercial attempt |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:06 - Feb 17 with 1199 views | _ |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:15 - Feb 17 by exiledclaseboy |
You’re creating a straw man. Again. Rhys, whose idea this was, planned t have “premium content” on the members only group. This was designed, whether you agree with it or not, to incentivise people to join. The “premium content” envisaged was stuff like videos and q and a sessions with the chair and supporter director etc. For various reasons, that stuff hasn’t happened and the two groups carry much the same info except that the open one is much busier. There is no information on the members only group that won’t be put in the open group unless legal advice dictates otherwise. You’re entitled to your view that the trust uses this group to “hide” info from non members but you’re wrong. |
Hasn't happened??
What a surprise. |  |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:08 - Feb 17 with 1196 views | Chief |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:24 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
It was a reply to your post, not the OP or topic in general, specifically your post. |
Yes, my post talking about the SSJ meeting / conference with the American owners.
Since then, as I say you've posted plenty without saying anything. the | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:08 - Feb 17 with 1190 views | The_E20 |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:02 - Feb 17 by phact0rri |
how is "premium content" look at as "secret information traveling between the board and the trust"? For me it sounds like videos and interviews and stuff... *shrugs*
And this isn't the same as having secret meetings, announcing them, and the not being able to talk about whatever was discussed.
For me this entire situation is a very clumsy PR stunt. And I'd not be surprised to learn that nothing was discussed, and the meeting involved a couple interns from DC United.
What bothers me is any supporter,acting as a PR wing for a board that is killing our club. It would have been better if they didn't mention anything at all, instead of "oh good things were said and they are trying to fix everything, so keep faith".
And I love that people in america love Swansea City Football club. As an american and a welshman I find this whole trend to be fantastic. What I don't love is people using americans love of the football club to promote some twisted agenda. And that is my problem.
I don't know what was said and what offered SSJ to make such statements. But more than not, but if I was hazarding a guess I'd say their channel of communication and speaking up to who ever it is they are able to speak to, is being paid for, by this awful commercial attempt |
I have no idea what premium content is. If it is q&a sessions as described then that is exactly the same content that is being loaned about here?
There was nothing secretive about the meeting, they informed the Trust even when they cheaply didn’t have to. The details of the discussion are private on the request of the interviewed party.
Who is acting as a PR wing for anybody? And how are the killing the club? These again seem like sweeping things that would crumble under even light questioning. I can only speak for myself and so say things as they are, often the most common sense standpoint. The problem is most of the views on here are so extreme and biased that common sense is viewed as odd. | | | |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:10 - Feb 17 with 1184 views | _ |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 10:47 - Feb 17 by Brynmill_Jack |
Oh dear, another thread that’s been extended beyond need inevitably by “Mr Look at me - i need your attention “. FFS |
This sort of bullshit post should be banned permanently on here.
Adding nothing but aggro. Grow up Steve, not everyone dressers like you, wears the same shoes as you, thinks like you FFS | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:16 - Feb 17 with 1170 views | phact0rri |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:08 - Feb 17 by The_E20 |
I have no idea what premium content is. If it is q&a sessions as described then that is exactly the same content that is being loaned about here?
There was nothing secretive about the meeting, they informed the Trust even when they cheaply didn’t have to. The details of the discussion are private on the request of the interviewed party.
Who is acting as a PR wing for anybody? And how are the killing the club? These again seem like sweeping things that would crumble under even light questioning. I can only speak for myself and so say things as they are, often the most common sense standpoint. The problem is most of the views on here are so extreme and biased that common sense is viewed as odd. |
<i>Who is acting as a PR wing for anybody? </i>
Everything I've read regarding the meeting sounds like things aren't so bad, and progress. Shining a positive light on the pile of rubbish. Yet no specifics. This sounds like PR to me.
<i>And how are the killing the club?</i>
if you don't think the choices that have been made over the last year and half, two years isn't a threat to the status of Swansea City, I'd like to have some of what your having. Because what I see is a lot of bad decisions, that seem to be savage and with no concern for for the club.
<i>There was nothing secretive about the meeting, they informed the Trust even when they cheaply didn’t have to. The details of the discussion are private on the request of the interviewed party. </i>
The point everyone is making is, if they were private, why mention publicly a meeting happened. why publicly go out of your way to state positivity, with no background for said positivity? | |
| |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:17 - Feb 17 with 1164 views | Chief |
| Stateside Jack's meeting with club on 11:10 - Feb 17 by _ |
This sort of bullshit post should be banned permanently on here.
Adding nothing but aggro. Grow up Steve, not everyone dressers like you, wears the same shoes as you, thinks like you FFS |
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The E20 is continuously posting irrelevant babble that's got nothing to do with this thread. Criticize him too then. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
