| Jake Silverstein 19:10 - Aug 7 with 15608 views | Treforys_Jack |
So another shareholder, good news or not ? |  | | |  |
| Jake Silverstein on 17:45 - Aug 16 with 1656 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 15:51 - Aug 13 by dobjack2 |
Who do the trust represent - the fans
In your world screwing over the trust and consequently the fans is good for the club then? |
The Trust represent the members of the Trust not the main fan base. When they have votes they take their lead from only 500 -1000 of the 18,000 who attended in the PL and thousand of other that follow from afar. From what I read there is a 'US' and 'THEM' mentality where 'US' represent the interests of the Trust not the club as a whole.
I believe the interests of the club and Trust are not the same. The Trusts brief is to increase its stake with the very modest aim of keeping football in Swansea. A life in league 2 ran by the fans would be more than acceptable. A socialist heaven where the Guardian turns up to check its green credentials and shower praise on the Trust leadership for their 'inclusivity' after a 7-0 thrashing at Fulham in the cup. Community activities coffee mornings, bowls nights. So lovely. Unfortunaely it also means no academy no young players coming through the ranks etc. It means Rodon Roberts and Cabango training in Bath like the old days. It means plucky little Swansea. Its political and low aspiration for Welsh people who know their place in the scheme of things.
The other model is an international model, American /Welsh owned but working on the principles set up by the so called "sell outs" who remain on the board. This is aspirational and sustainable and offers the prospect of an intermittent Premier league future like Norwich or WBA. It is based on long term sustainable growth with occasional contractions while developing and promoting local players to the very highest standards. It means beating the biggest teams on their own patch with skill and fierce local pride as demostrated by Lyon last night. In this model the Trust has to be a benign 5% owner in agreement with the club strategy and investing 1 part out of 20 of any new investment. 21% ownership is too big and always was once Roberto Martinez arrived. It was only possible from the incredible achievement of the previous owners who never asked the Trust for any contribution. An unprecedented era. The Americans cannot match this. No one can. This is for Welsh people who want to be at the top table at least every now and then. Legal action is for those with no faith whatsoever in the club simply bailing out at the first sign of rough seas. Grab what you can before we all end up in league 2. In plain 'stone cold losers'. These people need to get out of the club asap in my opinion. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:36 - Aug 16 with 1621 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 17:45 - Aug 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust represent the members of the Trust not the main fan base. When they have votes they take their lead from only 500 -1000 of the 18,000 who attended in the PL and thousand of other that follow from afar. From what I read there is a 'US' and 'THEM' mentality where 'US' represent the interests of the Trust not the club as a whole.
I believe the interests of the club and Trust are not the same. The Trusts brief is to increase its stake with the very modest aim of keeping football in Swansea. A life in league 2 ran by the fans would be more than acceptable. A socialist heaven where the Guardian turns up to check its green credentials and shower praise on the Trust leadership for their 'inclusivity' after a 7-0 thrashing at Fulham in the cup. Community activities coffee mornings, bowls nights. So lovely. Unfortunaely it also means no academy no young players coming through the ranks etc. It means Rodon Roberts and Cabango training in Bath like the old days. It means plucky little Swansea. Its political and low aspiration for Welsh people who know their place in the scheme of things.
The other model is an international model, American /Welsh owned but working on the principles set up by the so called "sell outs" who remain on the board. This is aspirational and sustainable and offers the prospect of an intermittent Premier league future like Norwich or WBA. It is based on long term sustainable growth with occasional contractions while developing and promoting local players to the very highest standards. It means beating the biggest teams on their own patch with skill and fierce local pride as demostrated by Lyon last night. In this model the Trust has to be a benign 5% owner in agreement with the club strategy and investing 1 part out of 20 of any new investment. 21% ownership is too big and always was once Roberto Martinez arrived. It was only possible from the incredible achievement of the previous owners who never asked the Trust for any contribution. An unprecedented era. The Americans cannot match this. No one can. This is for Welsh people who want to be at the top table at least every now and then. Legal action is for those with no faith whatsoever in the club simply bailing out at the first sign of rough seas. Grab what you can before we all end up in league 2. In plain 'stone cold losers'. These people need to get out of the club asap in my opinion. |
That bit about grabbing what you can, that's exactly what HJ and the others did. They could see the way things were going and grabbed their money and ran. It was the previous owners who took our spending past the sustainable point.
The Anericans biggest mistake was leaving HJ in charge, it was his hubris that cost us Hoe Allen and saw Clucas come instead. It was HJ who spurged a frankly ridiclous figure on Bony, a bit part player with a terrible injury record who should never have returned. Those 2 alone cost this club around 35 million just in transfers and who knows how much in wages. Disgraceful decisions. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:52 - Aug 16 with 1586 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:36 - Aug 16 by Catullus |
That bit about grabbing what you can, that's exactly what HJ and the others did. They could see the way things were going and grabbed their money and ran. It was the previous owners who took our spending past the sustainable point.
The Anericans biggest mistake was leaving HJ in charge, it was his hubris that cost us Hoe Allen and saw Clucas come instead. It was HJ who spurged a frankly ridiclous figure on Bony, a bit part player with a terrible injury record who should never have returned. Those 2 alone cost this club around 35 million just in transfers and who knows how much in wages. Disgraceful decisions. |
He has not left as far as I am aware, The two main local investors are still on the board no doubt considering if they should invest cash into the club to retain an interest. Swanseas is a serious club only for seriously interests with cash. It is the Trust and those wanting legal action that want to run away. It looks like into the wilderness to me. Any return to the club will be completely out of their hands.
I am not even sure they can continue indefinately as a Supporters Trust with no team attached. They might be obliged to start a new team with their gains. This might sound ike quite a nice idea but of course it will be affilianted to the FAW and unable to join the English system.
I agree the signing were poor including Clement's picks of Sanhes and Abraham. If Joe Allen wanted to be at Swansea he would be. He has signed not one but two Contracts at Stoke. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:16 - Aug 16 with 1567 views | bonymine |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:52 - Aug 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
He has not left as far as I am aware, The two main local investors are still on the board no doubt considering if they should invest cash into the club to retain an interest. Swanseas is a serious club only for seriously interests with cash. It is the Trust and those wanting legal action that want to run away. It looks like into the wilderness to me. Any return to the club will be completely out of their hands.
I am not even sure they can continue indefinately as a Supporters Trust with no team attached. They might be obliged to start a new team with their gains. This might sound ike quite a nice idea but of course it will be affilianted to the FAW and unable to join the English system.
I agree the signing were poor including Clement's picks of Sanhes and Abraham. If Joe Allen wanted to be at Swansea he would be. He has signed not one but two Contracts at Stoke. |
Oh look out long time no speak (You JENKINS apologist) .....once a sellout always a sellout whichever way you ‘spin it’ !!!
I see Tenko is now working in Morrisons Morfa since Judas sacked him as his driver and phuked off to Pembrokeshire with his cash .... 🤔🤔 always shit on those closest to you thick skinned big nose as always.
Shameful. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:19 - Aug 16 with 1559 views | Swanjaxs |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:16 - Aug 16 by bonymine |
Oh look out long time no speak (You JENKINS apologist) .....once a sellout always a sellout whichever way you ‘spin it’ !!!
I see Tenko is now working in Morrisons Morfa since Judas sacked him as his driver and phuked off to Pembrokeshire with his cash .... 🤔🤔 always shit on those closest to you thick skinned big nose as always.
Shameful. |
Tenko working in Morrisons!
Gota be in the bakery the fat lump of lard 😂 |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:25 - Aug 16 with 1550 views | bonymine |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:19 - Aug 16 by Swanjaxs |
Tenko working in Morrisons!
Gota be in the bakery the fat lump of lard 😂 |
I couldn’t believe it when I saw him TWICE over the past few weeks ....how the ‘mighty’ have fallen but I guess he has been shafted big time by his ‘former, richer mates’ ....indeed they shat on so many people to get their hands on their ill gotten gains as we all know and didn’t give two phuks for what happened to the Club after they’d got their Yankee Dollars ......Scumbags the lot of them. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:28 - Aug 16 with 1547 views | Dr_Winston |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:36 - Aug 16 by Catullus |
That bit about grabbing what you can, that's exactly what HJ and the others did. They could see the way things were going and grabbed their money and ran. It was the previous owners who took our spending past the sustainable point.
The Anericans biggest mistake was leaving HJ in charge, it was his hubris that cost us Hoe Allen and saw Clucas come instead. It was HJ who spurged a frankly ridiclous figure on Bony, a bit part player with a terrible injury record who should never have returned. Those 2 alone cost this club around 35 million just in transfers and who knows how much in wages. Disgraceful decisions. |
Lot of truth in that.
The Americans have been more guilty of stupidity than malice. Bradley. Leaving Jenkins in charge. Failing to engage properly with the Trust.
Unfortunately now the well is poisoned completely and it's very hard to see any kind of rapprochement, even despite the obviously decent work being done by Birch in getting the club close to sustainable.
Not helped by supporters crying like babies because we're not spending money we clearly don't have, or claiming that they're asset stripping when just a cursory glance over the figures fails to identify millions to pilfer. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:33 - Aug 16 with 1537 views | bonymine |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:28 - Aug 16 by Dr_Winston |
Lot of truth in that.
The Americans have been more guilty of stupidity than malice. Bradley. Leaving Jenkins in charge. Failing to engage properly with the Trust.
Unfortunately now the well is poisoned completely and it's very hard to see any kind of rapprochement, even despite the obviously decent work being done by Birch in getting the club close to sustainable.
Not helped by supporters crying like babies because we're not spending money we clearly don't have, or claiming that they're asset stripping when just a cursory glance over the figures fails to identify millions to pilfer. |
A very balanced response that Doc just wish I could articulate such a reply without igniting the vitriol I hold against JENKINS, Dineen, Van Zweden & Morgan etc .......ðŸ‘😂😂 | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jake Silverstein on 21:42 - Aug 16 with 1517 views | Dr_Winston |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:33 - Aug 16 by bonymine |
A very balanced response that Doc just wish I could articulate such a reply without igniting the vitriol I hold against JENKINS, Dineen, Van Zweden & Morgan etc .......ðŸ‘😂😂 |
Without doubt the majority of people's emnity should be reserved for the sellouts. They could have easily enriched themselves without shafting the Trust. Their active attempts to exclude the supporters from the process can never be forgotten.
The Americans aren't blameless by any measure, but the image of shifty Yanks spiriting massive bags full of cash with dollar signs on them back to the States don't hold up to an awful lot of scrutiny. | |
| 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. |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:07 - Aug 16 with 1480 views | bonymine |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:42 - Aug 16 by Dr_Winston |
Without doubt the majority of people's emnity should be reserved for the sellouts. They could have easily enriched themselves without shafting the Trust. Their active attempts to exclude the supporters from the process can never be forgotten.
The Americans aren't blameless by any measure, but the image of shifty Yanks spiriting massive bags full of cash with dollar signs on them back to the States don't hold up to an awful lot of scrutiny. |
In a nutshell ...the Sellouts must be so thick skinned that they can somehow sleep at night knowing what/how they have shafted the Trust and the fans with the ‘by the fans for the fans’ bollux and the JTAK glitterati which was nothing more than a tool to sell the Club to the highest bidder.....💰💰💰
The Sellouts should ALL hang their heads in shame but sadly they’ve moved on to pastures new and have spent all their ill gotten gains ........
‘You Greedy B@stards Don’t Ever Come Back’.
STID. 💪💪💪 | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:51 - Aug 16 with 1448 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:52 - Aug 16 by ReslovenSwan1 |
He has not left as far as I am aware, The two main local investors are still on the board no doubt considering if they should invest cash into the club to retain an interest. Swanseas is a serious club only for seriously interests with cash. It is the Trust and those wanting legal action that want to run away. It looks like into the wilderness to me. Any return to the club will be completely out of their hands.
I am not even sure they can continue indefinately as a Supporters Trust with no team attached. They might be obliged to start a new team with their gains. This might sound ike quite a nice idea but of course it will be affilianted to the FAW and unable to join the English system.
I agree the signing were poor including Clement's picks of Sanhes and Abraham. If Joe Allen wanted to be at Swansea he would be. He has signed not one but two Contracts at Stoke. |
I could be wrong but I think that HJ only kept a small % of shares, maybe 5 but didn;t he sign over his voting rights also? SO, no seat on the board, as far as I know. I stand to be corrected.
HJ and Morgan won't invest while the Americans are here. Besides, I thought it was common knowledge that Morgans wife was taking (or has taken) him to the cleaners and he needed to sell his shares?
https://www.reddit.com/r/swanseacity/comments/7vuy3m/martin_morgan_a_reason_behi
Joe Allen would have come back when we first asked about him, Stoke had shown no interest then. They only went in for him after the Euros (where he shone) and his asking price had jumped from 8 to 13 million, still less than we paid for Clucas mind. HJ refused to pay 8 for Joe so in the end we got a player not fit to lace Joe's boots for 16 million, utterly shocking. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 17 with 1337 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:16 - Aug 16 by bonymine |
Oh look out long time no speak (You JENKINS apologist) .....once a sellout always a sellout whichever way you ‘spin it’ !!!
I see Tenko is now working in Morrisons Morfa since Judas sacked him as his driver and phuked off to Pembrokeshire with his cash .... 🤔🤔 always shit on those closest to you thick skinned big nose as always.
Shameful. |
I think people in the Trust need to look at their own dismal performance. No money and no friends after the greatest era in the clubs history that lasted 15 long years. Seven of them in the richest league in the world.
How can they possibly be skint? Dare I suggest it? They have been very badly run. In business no one is interested in excuses. When the club is desperately short of cash the biggest minor shareholder is skint. What the hell have they been doing for 18 years.? | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:20 - Aug 17 with 1317 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I think people in the Trust need to look at their own dismal performance. No money and no friends after the greatest era in the clubs history that lasted 15 long years. Seven of them in the richest league in the world.
How can they possibly be skint? Dare I suggest it? They have been very badly run. In business no one is interested in excuses. When the club is desperately short of cash the biggest minor shareholder is skint. What the hell have they been doing for 18 years.? |
Doesn’t that exact same spiel apply to the the club? | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:45 - Aug 17 with 1290 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I think people in the Trust need to look at their own dismal performance. No money and no friends after the greatest era in the clubs history that lasted 15 long years. Seven of them in the richest league in the world.
How can they possibly be skint? Dare I suggest it? They have been very badly run. In business no one is interested in excuses. When the club is desperately short of cash the biggest minor shareholder is skint. What the hell have they been doing for 18 years.? |
Why do you think they are skint then? |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:23 - Aug 17 with 1259 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:45 - Aug 17 by Chief |
Why do you think they are skint then? |
I am no big shot but I use financial advice to manage my modest savings /pension. If any financial advisor told me to be 100% in a middle ranking football team I would report the advisor to the FCA and he/she would be sacked and de regulated. The Trust has no intention of ever investing in Swansea city and fullfilling its ownership obligations. These obligations are RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, and they have not put anything away. Not enough time perhaps? 18 years not enough time?
Why people put faith in them is baffling. They are there to protect professional football in Swansea. Give me a break. Without realising it they have been gambling the Trusts assets for huge stakes and long shot bets, such as Swasnsea staying in the league for a decade for example. They lost on that one by staying on the tables too long. The Legal action represents another huge risk for millions. 50:50 perhaps? I cannot believe someone will say "All in Black". This will be the final spin of the wheel. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:37 - Aug 17 with 1248 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:23 - Aug 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am no big shot but I use financial advice to manage my modest savings /pension. If any financial advisor told me to be 100% in a middle ranking football team I would report the advisor to the FCA and he/she would be sacked and de regulated. The Trust has no intention of ever investing in Swansea city and fullfilling its ownership obligations. These obligations are RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, and they have not put anything away. Not enough time perhaps? 18 years not enough time?
Why people put faith in them is baffling. They are there to protect professional football in Swansea. Give me a break. Without realising it they have been gambling the Trusts assets for huge stakes and long shot bets, such as Swasnsea staying in the league for a decade for example. They lost on that one by staying on the tables too long. The Legal action represents another huge risk for millions. 50:50 perhaps? I cannot believe someone will say "All in Black". This will be the final spin of the wheel. |
Ok, but what makes you think they are skint? | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 18:27 - Aug 17 with 1182 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:37 - Aug 17 by Chief |
Ok, but what makes you think they are skint? |
The bloke’s talking as if the yanks have invested millions over the last few seasons. Maybe the Trust should start loaning the club money as ‘investment’. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:30 - Aug 17 with 1135 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:23 - Aug 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am no big shot but I use financial advice to manage my modest savings /pension. If any financial advisor told me to be 100% in a middle ranking football team I would report the advisor to the FCA and he/she would be sacked and de regulated. The Trust has no intention of ever investing in Swansea city and fullfilling its ownership obligations. These obligations are RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, and they have not put anything away. Not enough time perhaps? 18 years not enough time?
Why people put faith in them is baffling. They are there to protect professional football in Swansea. Give me a break. Without realising it they have been gambling the Trusts assets for huge stakes and long shot bets, such as Swasnsea staying in the league for a decade for example. They lost on that one by staying on the tables too long. The Legal action represents another huge risk for millions. 50:50 perhaps? I cannot believe someone will say "All in Black". This will be the final spin of the wheel. |
What assets do you believe the trust has?
How have they been gambling those assets?
How much money do you believe the trust has? | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:27 - Aug 17 with 1111 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:30 - Aug 17 by Catullus |
What assets do you believe the trust has?
How have they been gambling those assets?
How much money do you believe the trust has? |
The Trust has assets in shares in the football club and had a few hundreds of thousands mostly from dividends before legal work and some membership money coming in from what I have read. I am not aware of any other significant income.
They had shares in a Premier league football team (2010-2017) that in each year has even randomly has a 15% chance of relegation and financial catastrophy. (3 from 20). On a non random basis their chance of releation was perhaps around 50% each season according to the betting firms at least. Only the biggest seven teams have avoided relegation from the PL since inception.
The Trust (notionally a committee of wise citizens) would normally be expected to play safe. Instead they started each season with 96% of their assets in the football club without making any effort to diversify their risk. Any football investment is "extremely high risk" as any financial consultant will tell you. Swansea city is 'off the scale' in risk terms.
Holding shares in football clubs, in anyones judgement, can be seen as a serious gamble in investment terms. They gambled for each of the seven seasons clearly stating that selling (diversifying) was not their prefered option. Selling would have cut their exposure. Taking legal action is also fraught with risk. Another huge gamble with money nobody owns. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:51 - Aug 17 with 1098 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:27 - Aug 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust has assets in shares in the football club and had a few hundreds of thousands mostly from dividends before legal work and some membership money coming in from what I have read. I am not aware of any other significant income.
They had shares in a Premier league football team (2010-2017) that in each year has even randomly has a 15% chance of relegation and financial catastrophy. (3 from 20). On a non random basis their chance of releation was perhaps around 50% each season according to the betting firms at least. Only the biggest seven teams have avoided relegation from the PL since inception.
The Trust (notionally a committee of wise citizens) would normally be expected to play safe. Instead they started each season with 96% of their assets in the football club without making any effort to diversify their risk. Any football investment is "extremely high risk" as any financial consultant will tell you. Swansea city is 'off the scale' in risk terms.
Holding shares in football clubs, in anyones judgement, can be seen as a serious gamble in investment terms. They gambled for each of the seven seasons clearly stating that selling (diversifying) was not their prefered option. Selling would have cut their exposure. Taking legal action is also fraught with risk. Another huge gamble with money nobody owns. |
So why do you think they are skint?
And how a would you expect them to diversify? Open a campsite?
You say about keeping their shares was a risk but what do you expect them to do with them? Who's falling over themselves to buy 21% of a football club? The Americans have shown that total power is possible without the trusts shares. [Post edited 17 Aug 2020 22:03]
| |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:22 - Aug 17 with 1055 views | AndyCole |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:28 - Aug 16 by Dr_Winston |
Lot of truth in that.
The Americans have been more guilty of stupidity than malice. Bradley. Leaving Jenkins in charge. Failing to engage properly with the Trust.
Unfortunately now the well is poisoned completely and it's very hard to see any kind of rapprochement, even despite the obviously decent work being done by Birch in getting the club close to sustainable.
Not helped by supporters crying like babies because we're not spending money we clearly don't have, or claiming that they're asset stripping when just a cursory glance over the figures fails to identify millions to pilfer. |
Woefully meek perspective.
Why bother supporting our club with this kind of shattitude, aye.
How about plotting a course for success, like the investors are.
Armchairs, plastics, the worst kind. | |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 04:05 - Aug 18 with 1026 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:22 - Aug 17 by AndyCole |
Woefully meek perspective.
Why bother supporting our club with this kind of shattitude, aye.
How about plotting a course for success, like the investors are.
Armchairs, plastics, the worst kind. |
Haha chwarae teg.
Living up your to strike partners Wumming. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:11 - Aug 18 with 978 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:42 - Aug 16 by Dr_Winston |
Without doubt the majority of people's emnity should be reserved for the sellouts. They could have easily enriched themselves without shafting the Trust. Their active attempts to exclude the supporters from the process can never be forgotten.
The Americans aren't blameless by any measure, but the image of shifty Yanks spiriting massive bags full of cash with dollar signs on them back to the States don't hold up to an awful lot of scrutiny. |
‘They could have easily enriched themselves without shafting the Trust’
This is where I am not so sure. My view is, it would have been difficult to sell their shares (possibly not at all) and certainly not for such massive bung, without shafting the Trust.
To ensure in this case, a combined share sale, and signing over of their voting rights (for their residual retained shares), ensured the new majority owners had virtually total control. There can be little doubt this was a requirement of the sale. Leaving the Trust’s substantial, but minority shareholding, as trapped shares, virtually worthless in terms of power or monetary value.
I recall delays to the completion of the sale. Presumably buyers not happy with certain aspects of their own protection in this deal, and presumably in relation to the ongoing position of the power of the Trust. I say this because on 19th July 2016 Jinx (via legal rep) tried to force the Trust to sign a document saying the Shareholder Agreement had never been valid. Which naturally they refused.
2 days later (just before the sale completion), a Board meeting was supposed to have taken place (chaired by Jinx) in which the Articles of Association of the Club were changed, to the significant detriment of the Trust. It is presumed the Trust were deliberately excluded from this meeting (which also approved the share transfer). Neither were the Trust informed of the important, and to us, significantly detrimental changes to the Club’s Articles of Association, before they were filed at Companies House.
This aligned with the recorded admission (by the buyers). of the deliberate exclusion of the Trust, (such they had no knowledge of the deal whatsoever, whilst it was being sewn up behind their backs) is appalling, but by no means the limit to the issues in relation to the Trusts treatment during the sale. The sellouts were entitled to sell their shares, but only for what they were honestly worth, without shafting the Trust, most especially in regard to their legal entitlements.
––––––––
From a Trust briefing on this...
On 19 July 2016, the Supporters’ Trust was approached by Chris Farnell, a solicitor acting for Huw Jenkins and other selling parties. Mr Farnell asked the Trust to sign a waiver stating that the original Shareholders’ Agreement was not, and had never been, valid. This document, which Mr Jenkins was clearly aware of as he had signed it, also came with the offer that, if signed, the Supporters’ Trust would be afforded two director positions on the club board — one full directorship and the other with observer status. The Trust rejected this offer and the document remains unsigned on our part. In his interview Mr Jenkins says ‘I think we all have different opinions on the shareholders agreement’. The actions of his solicitor, in presenting the Trust with this waiver suggests Mr Jenkins appeared sufficiently concerned about its impact to seek to invalidate it.
Immediately before the 2016 deal was completed, the Articles of Association of the football club were changed. These were changed during a meeting, chaired by Huw Jenkins, of the club’s board held on 21 July 2016. These changes had a significantly detrimental impact on the position of minority shareholders such as the Trust. The Trust has previously commented that we were not informed of these changes prior to them being filed at Companies House nor were our representatives a part of this board meeting. Given that the transfer of shares to complete the sale were also approved during this board meeting, we can only assume we were deliberately excluded. |  | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 18 with 962 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:23 - Aug 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am no big shot but I use financial advice to manage my modest savings /pension. If any financial advisor told me to be 100% in a middle ranking football team I would report the advisor to the FCA and he/she would be sacked and de regulated. The Trust has no intention of ever investing in Swansea city and fullfilling its ownership obligations. These obligations are RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, and they have not put anything away. Not enough time perhaps? 18 years not enough time?
Why people put faith in them is baffling. They are there to protect professional football in Swansea. Give me a break. Without realising it they have been gambling the Trusts assets for huge stakes and long shot bets, such as Swasnsea staying in the league for a decade for example. They lost on that one by staying on the tables too long. The Legal action represents another huge risk for millions. 50:50 perhaps? I cannot believe someone will say "All in Black". This will be the final spin of the wheel. |
We have experienced legal Counsel, advising us we have a STRONG legal case
And you are suggesting 50:50 ;)
You seem to be getting increasingly desperate to make things up
You do understand Counsel are fully aware of the legal system, are experts in their fields, and won’t stick their neck out, or risk their massively valuable legal reputation by overestimating the strength of a case. In fact quite the reverse. You do understand strong means robust / powerful?
. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:55 - Aug 18 with 934 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:11 - Aug 18 by chad |
‘They could have easily enriched themselves without shafting the Trust’
This is where I am not so sure. My view is, it would have been difficult to sell their shares (possibly not at all) and certainly not for such massive bung, without shafting the Trust.
To ensure in this case, a combined share sale, and signing over of their voting rights (for their residual retained shares), ensured the new majority owners had virtually total control. There can be little doubt this was a requirement of the sale. Leaving the Trust’s substantial, but minority shareholding, as trapped shares, virtually worthless in terms of power or monetary value.
I recall delays to the completion of the sale. Presumably buyers not happy with certain aspects of their own protection in this deal, and presumably in relation to the ongoing position of the power of the Trust. I say this because on 19th July 2016 Jinx (via legal rep) tried to force the Trust to sign a document saying the Shareholder Agreement had never been valid. Which naturally they refused.
2 days later (just before the sale completion), a Board meeting was supposed to have taken place (chaired by Jinx) in which the Articles of Association of the Club were changed, to the significant detriment of the Trust. It is presumed the Trust were deliberately excluded from this meeting (which also approved the share transfer). Neither were the Trust informed of the important, and to us, significantly detrimental changes to the Club’s Articles of Association, before they were filed at Companies House.
This aligned with the recorded admission (by the buyers). of the deliberate exclusion of the Trust, (such they had no knowledge of the deal whatsoever, whilst it was being sewn up behind their backs) is appalling, but by no means the limit to the issues in relation to the Trusts treatment during the sale. The sellouts were entitled to sell their shares, but only for what they were honestly worth, without shafting the Trust, most especially in regard to their legal entitlements.
––––––––
From a Trust briefing on this...
On 19 July 2016, the Supporters’ Trust was approached by Chris Farnell, a solicitor acting for Huw Jenkins and other selling parties. Mr Farnell asked the Trust to sign a waiver stating that the original Shareholders’ Agreement was not, and had never been, valid. This document, which Mr Jenkins was clearly aware of as he had signed it, also came with the offer that, if signed, the Supporters’ Trust would be afforded two director positions on the club board — one full directorship and the other with observer status. The Trust rejected this offer and the document remains unsigned on our part. In his interview Mr Jenkins says ‘I think we all have different opinions on the shareholders agreement’. The actions of his solicitor, in presenting the Trust with this waiver suggests Mr Jenkins appeared sufficiently concerned about its impact to seek to invalidate it.
Immediately before the 2016 deal was completed, the Articles of Association of the football club were changed. These were changed during a meeting, chaired by Huw Jenkins, of the club’s board held on 21 July 2016. These changes had a significantly detrimental impact on the position of minority shareholders such as the Trust. The Trust has previously commented that we were not informed of these changes prior to them being filed at Companies House nor were our representatives a part of this board meeting. Given that the transfer of shares to complete the sale were also approved during this board meeting, we can only assume we were deliberately excluded. |
How much weight do the legal guys think the shareholders agreement holds? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
