| Trust update 13:45 - Mar 22 with 4463 views | pencoedjack |
Just received an email
The Swans Trust welcomes the appointment of Trevor Birch as the new Chairman of our football club.
The Trust was informed that Mr Birch was the majority owners’ preferred candidate in advance of his appointment and we were given the opportunity to speak with him at that time, which we did. We have also been able to meet him this week and we are grateful to Trevor for his time and willingness to facilitate a meeting so quickly after his appointment. He brings wide experience and expertise to the role.
However, the Trust does have concerns regarding some aspects of his remuneration package, which we have been informed contains an equity element. The details and conditions of this are unclear but, if true, would potentially dilute the Trust’s shareholding and further prejudice our position as a minority shareholder in the football club. Therefore, the Trust is unable to support this element of the proposal. The Trust raised our objections to the majority owners prior to the appointment but, not for the first time, we have not received a response.
The Trust shares the concerns raised by our members about the remit and targets he has been set by the majority owners. However, we have been told that his focus is on stabilising the club rather than preparing the club for a sale.
The Trust is also aware of the press reports regarding members of staff being notified of a consultation period regarding potential redundancies at our club. The Trust is acutely aware of the financial challenges which life in the Championship brings, but it is disappointing that jobs are at risk primarily due to the poor management of the football club in the past. The Trust, through our supporter director, will be strongly representing the views of our members to the new chairman and the club board that any decisions made are taken with the best long-term interests of the football club at heart.
Swansea City Supporters Trust |  | | |  |
| Trust update on 21:57 - Mar 22 with 851 views | Fireboy2 |
Btw i havent watched JTAK for quite a while.
Im seriously thinking of throwing at the sellout cvnts the next time i come down for a home game but i dont want to get in trouble and therefore jeopardise my job
Im in a quandary |  | | |
| Trust update on 22:09 - Mar 22 with 816 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust update on 21:49 - Mar 22 by Wingstandwood |
Thanks for the reply, staggering to think they still attend, no sense of shame, no morals, no guilt or awareness whatsoever.
Probably still ego-tripping and drunk on JTAK lies, JTAK myths, JTAK self importance and JTAK overhype! |
And nobody says anything to them? |  |
| |
| Trust update on 22:13 - Mar 22 with 809 views | Vincent_Vega |
It’s a massive cluster from the start.
I’d imagine them down the road will look at who will take redundancies at our club to bolster their ranks should the worst happen and they stay up.
Can’t deny we’ll be losing some great people while Pearlman eat al will continue to con 500k per annum
It stinks. |  |
| Boycott Shampoo......Demand Real Poo!!! |
| |
| Trust update on 22:22 - Mar 22 with 792 views | Wingstandwood |
| Trust update on 22:09 - Mar 22 by waynekerr55 |
And nobody says anything to them? |
I think they're not going to feel so V.I.P, so cocky or comfortable sitting in their viper-nest(s) from here on in? I suspect they will now come face to face with SCFC/Liberty Stadium employees that have received recent redundancy letters.
Put it this way i.e. anybody with an ounce of common sense would not be so keen to sample the delights of Liberty Stadium cuisine/drinks just in case stuff tastes just a little too much like Movicol or knuckle sandwich?
 |  |
| |
| Trust update on 18:48 - Mar 24 with 483 views | chad |
| Trust update on 15:36 - Mar 22 by jasper_T |
They already have. Relegation decimated the value of the shares.
Not that making money is the Trust's main objective. The stated aims were to maintain a shareholding in the club, and make sure a professional team survives in the city. |
The aims of the Swans Trust are:
To maintain a professional football club in Swansea;
To bring the football club closer to it’s local community;
To have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club;
To maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above
To represent the needs and aims of our members at all times;
You present maintaining a shareholding in the club as the primary aim
As such you seem to imply that legal action goes against the aims of the Trust.
Not so, as I pointed out recently in another thread. By its wording it is a supporting aim, it needs to support the primary aim. If it fails to support the primary aim, or worse still works against it, then it is no longer in pursuance of the primary aim and so becomes irrelevant
So if maintaining shares leaves us effectively impotent with no real say or power, and our trapped shares have effectively no value. Then the opportunity to take our strong case to court (Where the most likely outcome of such legal action - given our strong legal case and the basis of that case - will result in the Trust being bought out of the club for the value of those shares at the time of sale - upwards of £21m - confirmed tax free) becomes the most effective way of pursuing the primary aim, even though that outcome would result in us no longer having shares in the club.
Of course perhaps you are forgetting that the massively advantageous deal to the majority owners (that the Trust unfathomably recommended and pushed, but of which the new owners unilaterally pulled out of) shockingly would have handed to the majority owners the ability and control to force us to sell all our shares, at any time they chose, and to a buyer and at a price entirely of their choosing.
Perhaps that (one of the numerous major flaws of that Trust recommended deal) did need to be more clearly spelled out to members (or at least rhose who had not paid a few quid to join just to protect the personal fortunes and reputations of the hedge fund and sellouts). Perhaps a brief membership review of the consultation could have prevented all the subsequent claims of bias. Still I am sure the Trust have a lessons learned process!
As I said at the last Trust meeting, it would be heartbreaking to no longer have a shareholding, however with no real protection against share dilution, it could result in eventual forcible buy out for derisory amounts anyway. And in the meantime continuing a powerless and toxic relationship which could be very costly as we continually need to take legal advice / action as the will of the majority owners (who have repeatedly shown they are not to be trusted, have no respect for us, and during the sale showed the depths to which they are willing to sink to exclude us) continues to be imposed on us and our club.
Perhaps this will help...
If your aim is to keep a child warm and safe
And a secondary aim is to put on her red coat in pursuance of the above
Then if the red coat becomes threadbare, or worse still, infected with toxicity, then however lovely, safe and warm the coat used to be, making her wear it would no longer be in pursuance of the primary aim and might even kill the child
Would you make her wear it?
Do you think those aims suggest you should in that situation?
Of course not
Sadly of late our club feels more like the infected rag rather than that lovely warm, soft coat we used to wrap ourselves in. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
