| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18647 views | KeithHaynes |
It’s been an interesting topic for sure, which does sometimes spill over in to other threads, and understandably so. I've taken some time out to look at the specific action taken. It’s my understanding that this is very clearly down to specific issues around the weeks leading up to the sale of the club by the old board. The exclusion of the supporters trust in the sale and despite the trust wishing to be involved were excluded. That’s the basis of the action. For it to be a valid action the statements of truth gathered by the ( plaintiff) other words are used to describe them have to have some depth in law. Clearly the trust haven’t gone ahead to freeze assets and this is another topic which needs clarification. This action is not against Swansea City FC, as it was then or is now. The claims being brought are not against the club.
They are against those individuals who sold the club as they were, not the club as it was, nor as it is now. I think this should be a key area for people to dwell upon. I would have thought both sides ( and there are many sides named because it isn’t one entity) will have already disclosed at least some, but not all of their paperwork similar to criminal cases ( CPIA it’s called criminally ) As there is no fixed date as yet for a trial my understanding is full disclosure has to go ahead before any trial. I think that’s around eight weeks prior.
That aside, it still seems to me to be pretty clear the various named persons will either have to settle to some extent prior to any trial date or go ahead and defend the action. This isn’t as a whole being but as individuals. For example, Jenkins and Dineen will be separate defendants as will the rest of the then board. Any award will not be paid for by the club but by the individuals from their own personal wealth, if of course they lose the action. That will be measured by percentages, but I’m pretty certain won’t amount to the actual money lost by the trust when the sale went ahead.
That’s my take on it, please discuss that here folks, give it some thought before pressing enter, there are clearly some differing stances on here, which is healthy and as I would expect in a society where personal interests and views will always be different. If we can keep the topic on this thread it will be an interesting discussion. |  |
| |  |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:35 - Nov 25 with 874 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:44 - Nov 25 by Chief |
So you've realised you've been caught out on the straw clutching prison so i see you've tried a new tact&ignored the responses.
- you have no idea what the terms are of the trust's legal representation but you seem all too keen to comment on that. But because you know that Huws actions are indefensible you try to sweep it under the carpet. Doesnt sound very principled to me. Luckily the judge will not sweep it under the carpet.
- Again these speculative, hypothetical figures do nothing to excuse the sellouts actions. The sellouts and Americans could always settle before the trial to stop this money to English public school people.
- If we're going up the club will have enough money to run the academy whatever happens though won't it? You yourself have even said it was a bad idea of the Americans to downgrade it so presumably you think its affordable now even in the championship. So sorry, nice try your own logic has come back to bite you again. Another desperate straw clutching empty scenario myth busted.
- |
Legal action is a bad idea and I have not deviated from this line. Not straw clutching at all. I have never commented on legal documents. You can do that if you want to. The SHL what does it say? You reckoned the Trust would pay not tax. You may be right. I very much doubt it but will not comment on it for sure.
As far as I am concerned if the sellers including Venture capitalists wanted to sell their share to the Americans they should be allowed to sell them. The Trust were discussing their shares with the US people before the sale was finalised. It was up to them to organise their affairs and make a deal. The indications from the 2017 talks were the Trust people did not like the terms. That was thier choice.
The funders terms for 'no win no deal' are traditionally exhorbitant. The Trust cannot afford to lose this case on their own. They do not have the funds to pay the legal bills. I promote living within my means. So should the Trust.
The more I read the more I realise the members are not sophisticated enough to be invloved in the running of a football club. They clearly have trouble understanding the financial aspects. This is why they may be persuing a legal claim that actually makes no economic sense and could end up rewarding the sellers not penalising them. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:47 - Nov 25 with 857 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:35 - Nov 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Legal action is a bad idea and I have not deviated from this line. Not straw clutching at all. I have never commented on legal documents. You can do that if you want to. The SHL what does it say? You reckoned the Trust would pay not tax. You may be right. I very much doubt it but will not comment on it for sure.
As far as I am concerned if the sellers including Venture capitalists wanted to sell their share to the Americans they should be allowed to sell them. The Trust were discussing their shares with the US people before the sale was finalised. It was up to them to organise their affairs and make a deal. The indications from the 2017 talks were the Trust people did not like the terms. That was thier choice.
The funders terms for 'no win no deal' are traditionally exhorbitant. The Trust cannot afford to lose this case on their own. They do not have the funds to pay the legal bills. I promote living within my means. So should the Trust.
The more I read the more I realise the members are not sophisticated enough to be invloved in the running of a football club. They clearly have trouble understanding the financial aspects. This is why they may be persuing a legal claim that actually makes no economic sense and could end up rewarding the sellers not penalising them. |
- Yea you only comment on things that you think will portray the trust and their case in a bad light. We get it.
- Incorrect - it was a responsibility of the buyers and sellers to include othet shareholders from the start and offer them the same terms. We know that didn't happen.
- So you don't know what terms the funders are working on but you speculate anyway. How can you do that without seeing the contract? Similar to your stance on the shareholders agreement?
- If you think that then presumably you support legal action then? Because these people who you say are useless and can't understand finances wont have a stake and the sellouts who you hold in high acclaim will get a bonus. Or was this just another random dig at the trust that has no basis? Remember it was you that said that any sale with a mark up that the trust will receive is "never a bad deal". Suggests they aren't so bad at financial matters doesnt it? [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 18:50]
|  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:45 - Nov 25 with 820 views | BillyChong |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:18 - Nov 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not concern myself with documents just principles and figures. The Shareholders Agreement. I have never seen it. Was it valid or not? I have no idea. How can I comment? It does not stop others.
I am against legal action as it seems to involve giving English public school people a lot of the Trust's money maybe up to half. This money was created by the potential resondents who helped creat the Trust in the first place. They will only ever recover around £12-14m. If Cooper takes the Club to the PL the latest estimate is a valuation of £42m . I believe Swansea will get promoted within the next 5 years. 4% interest on £42m is enough to run the academy.
I am the only one making this case. Most on this site never gave it any consideration, It was probably "too boring". |
“I do not concern myself with documents....” you’ve just been caught out and made yourself look rather silly yet again. Oh but wait, inflation is to blame for everything. LOL. |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:32 - Nov 25 with 786 views | Darran |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:23 - Nov 25 by Darran |
It is in the public domain that Leigh Dineen and Huw Jenkins both asked the Trust themselves to rip up the SHA.
Jenkins solicitor then wrote to the Trust to ask them to rip up the SHA.
Why do you think they did that? |
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2
On the 19th July the Supporters Trust were then approached by Chris Farnell, a solicitor acting for Huw Jenkins and other selling parties, asking the Trust to sign a waiver stating that the original Shareholders Agreement was not, and had never been, valid. This document, which was sent with the full awareness of Huw Jenkins as a signatory, also came with the offer that, if signed, the Supporters Trust would be afforded 2 director positions on the club board — one full directorship and the other with observer status. This offer was rejected and the document remains unsigned on our part. It also demonstrates that, even though the sellers warranted that there was no existing shareholder agreement, the sellers were more than aware of its existence, otherwise why would they seek to invalidate it? |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:41 - Nov 25 with 773 views | onehunglow |
We are 1-0 against a dire Sheff Weds outfit albeit they have a real manager who knows what he's doing.
I',m more concerned why we have not even have had 1 shot at goal whilst some are more interested in seeking vengeance . Truly we have our priorities wrong. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:48 - Nov 25 with 767 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:45 - Nov 25 by BillyChong |
“I do not concern myself with documents....” you’ve just been caught out and made yourself look rather silly yet again. Oh but wait, inflation is to blame for everything. LOL. |
I am not a lawyer. I have no intention of ploughing my way through private legal documents. That is their job. What does the SH agreement say Billy.? Spell out the key features. Have you read it?
The Trust can only benefit from positive inflation. It increases the value of their holding. Generally buying something at the price 5 years earlier is not a good idea. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Nov 25 with 747 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:48 - Nov 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am not a lawyer. I have no intention of ploughing my way through private legal documents. That is their job. What does the SH agreement say Billy.? Spell out the key features. Have you read it?
The Trust can only benefit from positive inflation. It increases the value of their holding. Generally buying something at the price 5 years earlier is not a good idea. |
- have you read the contract between the trust and their legal representatives? No but you're prepared to make assumptions on what that entails.
- its pretty obvious that the shareholders agreement has significance, otherwise why would Huw try to get it changed?
- "selling something at such a mark up can never been seen as a bad deal" ReslovenSwan1, 2020. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:35 - Nov 25 with 717 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Nov 25 by Chief |
- have you read the contract between the trust and their legal representatives? No but you're prepared to make assumptions on what that entails.
- its pretty obvious that the shareholders agreement has significance, otherwise why would Huw try to get it changed?
- "selling something at such a mark up can never been seen as a bad deal" ReslovenSwan1, 2020. |
I have not read any legal paperwork relating to this case. That is for the lawyers. What i have read is the Trust s statements and press reports and a little reading up on legal procedures and definitions and the Trust mission statement for example.
There is absolutely no reason for the Trust to go to court. They have been well served by the people they plan to take to court. It is common knowledge that the 'no win no fee' costs are prohibitive. The ball park figures I have suggested have not been contested. You yourself agreed the figures were a reasonable guess.
Any investor will tell you if you have a x 100 mark up you sell. Its common sense. You in your personal life will never see these returns. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:43 - Nov 25 with 714 views | Garyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:48 - Nov 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am not a lawyer. I have no intention of ploughing my way through private legal documents. That is their job. What does the SH agreement say Billy.? Spell out the key features. Have you read it?
The Trust can only benefit from positive inflation. It increases the value of their holding. Generally buying something at the price 5 years earlier is not a good idea. |
But you advocate the trust handing over their 4% growth p.a should they get your magical £42m to run the academy in future thus effectively reducing their cash holding each year due to inflation?
Inflation means zilch when you are talking about a companies worth. There are thousands of companies worldwide who are worth less than what they did 5 years ago, it has nothing to do with inflation, it's based on that companies performance.
So hypothetically, if SCFC was listed on the stock market, would you put your money where your mouth is and back the total conjecture that you have displayed in these threads and 'buy buy buy'? I don't think so.
You are talking in riddles, and constantly contradict yourself depending on who you are replying to.
By the way for what it's worth, I haven't seen the SH agreement either, but i do know it contains that not one individual would own more than 24.9% to protect the other shareholders holding. And nobody did until............... |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:45 - Nov 25 with 711 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:35 - Nov 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have not read any legal paperwork relating to this case. That is for the lawyers. What i have read is the Trust s statements and press reports and a little reading up on legal procedures and definitions and the Trust mission statement for example.
There is absolutely no reason for the Trust to go to court. They have been well served by the people they plan to take to court. It is common knowledge that the 'no win no fee' costs are prohibitive. The ball park figures I have suggested have not been contested. You yourself agreed the figures were a reasonable guess.
Any investor will tell you if you have a x 100 mark up you sell. Its common sense. You in your personal life will never see these returns. |
- You should have seen the press coverage of Huw trying to get this agreement invalidated and also altering meeting minutes then. No need to see the documents in question, there's been plenty of coverage on it.
- You're right, the sellouts and Americans could always try and settle out of court. If the Americans want the trusts shares like you've claimed all along why wouldn't they do this?
- How do you know its no win no fee? If the costs of no win no fee are prohibitive, how are such arrangements still commonplace? Irrelevant whether they are contested or not, you've still made assumptions without seeing evidence on it, something you refuse to do when you know its something that reflects badly on the sellouts.
- remind me again how much the trust bought their shares for. And how much they stand to receive in the event of a court win. And how much of a mark up it'll be. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:49 - Nov 25 with 702 views | Algorfajack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:32 - Nov 25 by Darran |
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2
On the 19th July the Supporters Trust were then approached by Chris Farnell, a solicitor acting for Huw Jenkins and other selling parties, asking the Trust to sign a waiver stating that the original Shareholders Agreement was not, and had never been, valid. This document, which was sent with the full awareness of Huw Jenkins as a signatory, also came with the offer that, if signed, the Supporters Trust would be afforded 2 director positions on the club board — one full directorship and the other with observer status. This offer was rejected and the document remains unsigned on our part. It also demonstrates that, even though the sellers warranted that there was no existing shareholder agreement, the sellers were more than aware of its existence, otherwise why would they seek to invalidate it? |
Boom!  |  |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:51 - Nov 25 with 692 views | Darran |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:43 - Nov 25 by Garyjack |
But you advocate the trust handing over their 4% growth p.a should they get your magical £42m to run the academy in future thus effectively reducing their cash holding each year due to inflation?
Inflation means zilch when you are talking about a companies worth. There are thousands of companies worldwide who are worth less than what they did 5 years ago, it has nothing to do with inflation, it's based on that companies performance.
So hypothetically, if SCFC was listed on the stock market, would you put your money where your mouth is and back the total conjecture that you have displayed in these threads and 'buy buy buy'? I don't think so.
You are talking in riddles, and constantly contradict yourself depending on who you are replying to.
By the way for what it's worth, I haven't seen the SH agreement either, but i do know it contains that not one individual would own more than 24.9% to protect the other shareholders holding. And nobody did until............... |
Simplify it.
I’ve got 76% of the club and total control. You’ve got 24% of the club and no say in anything.
Who’s going to buy your shares off you? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:56 - Nov 25 with 687 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:43 - Nov 25 by Garyjack |
But you advocate the trust handing over their 4% growth p.a should they get your magical £42m to run the academy in future thus effectively reducing their cash holding each year due to inflation?
Inflation means zilch when you are talking about a companies worth. There are thousands of companies worldwide who are worth less than what they did 5 years ago, it has nothing to do with inflation, it's based on that companies performance.
So hypothetically, if SCFC was listed on the stock market, would you put your money where your mouth is and back the total conjecture that you have displayed in these threads and 'buy buy buy'? I don't think so.
You are talking in riddles, and constantly contradict yourself depending on who you are replying to.
By the way for what it's worth, I haven't seen the SH agreement either, but i do know it contains that not one individual would own more than 24.9% to protect the other shareholders holding. And nobody did until............... |
The last bits interesting and makes sense as to why Huw would want the agreement ripped up.
But, could the Americans argue that because there's so many of them (28 at last count?) that of the 68%ish they own as a whole, none of them as individuals actually do own more than 24.9%? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:02 - Nov 25 with 675 views | Treforys_Jack |
Res, you've been mullered mate. |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:04 - Nov 25 with 677 views | Garyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:51 - Nov 25 by Darran |
Simplify it.
I’ve got 76% of the club and total control. You’ve got 24% of the club and no say in anything.
Who’s going to buy your shares off you? |
Exactly, and so it would carry on with any future buyers. Yet this nougat thinks the sky's the limit for the trust if we were promoted! I find it hard to grasp that he's allowed to peddle this utter nonsense over and over again! | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:15 - Nov 25 with 668 views | Garyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:56 - Nov 25 by Chief |
The last bits interesting and makes sense as to why Huw would want the agreement ripped up.
But, could the Americans argue that because there's so many of them (28 at last count?) that of the 68%ish they own as a whole, none of them as individuals actually do own more than 24.9%? |
The sale was to Levein and Kaplan. None of the hedge funders actually has a percentage holding in the club. I see your point, but if that were the case then still minority shareholdings would still have to be offered to the trust first and foremost.
Edit. In fact i believe that any share sale by any shareholder has to be offered to the remaining shareholders first. This is also in the SH agreement. The facts surrounding whether the trust could or could not afford to purchase them is irrelevant. [Post edited 25 Nov 2020 23:27]
| | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:21 - Nov 25 with 649 views | Darran |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:04 - Nov 25 by Garyjack |
Exactly, and so it would carry on with any future buyers. Yet this nougat thinks the sky's the limit for the trust if we were promoted! I find it hard to grasp that he's allowed to peddle this utter nonsense over and over again! |
I couldn’t agree more,very strange. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 07:54 - Nov 26 with 578 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:04 - Nov 25 by Garyjack |
Exactly, and so it would carry on with any future buyers. Yet this nougat thinks the sky's the limit for the trust if we were promoted! I find it hard to grasp that he's allowed to peddle this utter nonsense over and over again! |
It's good that is allowed to continue.
Because he's getting his ass handed to him on a plate. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 7:54]
|  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:46 - Nov 26 with 547 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 08:09 - Nov 25 by Chief |
- So we're just meant to accept what happened. You dont give any reasons as to why we should though. Just because it happened? Strange.
- Sweeping statement next which contradicts yourself. Because by your logic the trust and supporters should get on with it and accept what happened. By saying they were sleeping you're implying they let something happen on their watch - which is fine by you anyway. Thats just completely random mudslinging with no basis isn't it.
- how could they be prepared for something that they deliberately nof told was happening. The Americans have admitted doing this.
- You obviously haven't been paying attention to tge timeline of events then have you. And it was the likes of Huw Jenkins scurrying around doctoring meeting minutes and trying to destroy a shareholders agreement.
- that lion would get shot if it attacked humans. There's consequences for actions. |
- You aren't “meant” to do anything really. The Trust shouldn’t have allowed themselves to be open to the position they found themselves. When they found themselves there they should have acted. Yet they did everything in their power to do the opposite. I don’t see any benefit in going the legal route now. What is the best case scenario? Skint and no shares, which is worse than where they stand now.
- Not sure where you are seeing a contradiction there. Acting at the time and closing the barn door after the horse had bolted are two completely different things. There was clear benefit to not being caught sleeping, there is very little benefit going after it 5 years later. As I said, best case scenario is they find in the Trusts favour (in my opinion unlikely now) and they have a forced sale of their shares to which they have to give the majority of it away to the solicitors and tax man (or woman).
- Once the first Americans were involved Charles Noell and his partner, then it was clear the owners were wanting to sell. From that moment on the landscape should have changed for the trust, realised they do not have enough voting rights to stop such things as dilution on the future and insist they want in on any sale. It’s pretty basic stuff to be fair and doesn’t require expert level of foresight.
- Yes I’m perfectly aware of timelines, I lived it. Yes Jenkins doctored minutes, naughty boy. Probably a few other dodgy things too. Still doesn’t mean they will be forced to buy the shares 5 years later with money they may well not even have anymore.
- That lion would only get shot if those there to protect the safari were not sleeping. Going back to find the lions 5 years later seems as futile as this situation. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:00 - Nov 26 with 538 views | onehunglow |
What has nougat got to do with it,mun.
Nothing less than public execution in Victoria Gardens would suffice and Jenkins bones crushed and dumped on Baglan mountain.
Yes,accept it and move on.
Time passages | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:07 - Nov 26 with 536 views | Dr_Parnassus |
I honestly think it’s more a revenge mission at this point.
If people were offered the chance for Jenkins and co to lose their millions in exchange for the Trust losing their shares and cash... they would take it.
Errors have been made, glaringly so. Arrogance prevailed within the Trust and greed prevailed in the boardroom. Legacy’s have been killed off in both areas and both let the club and fans down badly.
Move on and move forward. We sit in the top 5 in the second division with a great young team and an exciting young manager and facilities that many of us dreamed of. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:12 - Nov 26 with 528 views | Treforys_Jack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:07 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
I honestly think it’s more a revenge mission at this point.
If people were offered the chance for Jenkins and co to lose their millions in exchange for the Trust losing their shares and cash... they would take it.
Errors have been made, glaringly so. Arrogance prevailed within the Trust and greed prevailed in the boardroom. Legacy’s have been killed off in both areas and both let the club and fans down badly.
Move on and move forward. We sit in the top 5 in the second division with a great young team and an exciting young manager and facilities that many of us dreamed of. |
I wouldn't say the trust acted with arrogance, more naivety thinking our local owners would never lie and deceive. A poor decision as it turned out. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:24 - Nov 26 with 526 views | onehunglow |
It is Par and every subsequent post we see is evidence of that.
Any "justice" has now been tipped and it is clear petty jealousy ,hate and village squabblling vengeance is more important than our club. Somebody need this festering boil on the club and it IS about the club because the CLUB is the subject over the sale.Do people not see this ?Are they so wrapped up in hate? Yes they are.
Anyone not wanting action has been ,is and will get insulting filth which we are seeing with PS interlopers who pop on to here to have a go then report back to Cimla HQ.
It is beyond pathetic.
That said, just how many questions have been asked as to where the significant money for players sales went. Far greater issue | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:25 - Nov 26 with 525 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:46 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- You aren't “meant” to do anything really. The Trust shouldn’t have allowed themselves to be open to the position they found themselves. When they found themselves there they should have acted. Yet they did everything in their power to do the opposite. I don’t see any benefit in going the legal route now. What is the best case scenario? Skint and no shares, which is worse than where they stand now.
- Not sure where you are seeing a contradiction there. Acting at the time and closing the barn door after the horse had bolted are two completely different things. There was clear benefit to not being caught sleeping, there is very little benefit going after it 5 years later. As I said, best case scenario is they find in the Trusts favour (in my opinion unlikely now) and they have a forced sale of their shares to which they have to give the majority of it away to the solicitors and tax man (or woman).
- Once the first Americans were involved Charles Noell and his partner, then it was clear the owners were wanting to sell. From that moment on the landscape should have changed for the trust, realised they do not have enough voting rights to stop such things as dilution on the future and insist they want in on any sale. It’s pretty basic stuff to be fair and doesn’t require expert level of foresight.
- Yes I’m perfectly aware of timelines, I lived it. Yes Jenkins doctored minutes, naughty boy. Probably a few other dodgy things too. Still doesn’t mean they will be forced to buy the shares 5 years later with money they may well not even have anymore.
- That lion would only get shot if those there to protect the safari were not sleeping. Going back to find the lions 5 years later seems as futile as this situation. |
- How did they leave themselves open to this? The Americans have admitted they and sellouts deliberately kept the trust out of. Which they obviously very careful in doing. If no one told the trust literally how would they know. Why do you think they'll be skint? And even if the trust had somehow found out, is it morally right for a fellow shareholder whom you've worked alongside to do it? No. You'd say tough. Ok then, but expect a backlash.how would they be skint? Even by Resolvens Conservative estimates the trust could receive 12million quid.
- Actually there is a benefit - see above. As well as justice. Ridiculous state of affairs where you are backing the deceivers more than the deceived then criticising the deceived when they take steps to gain justice.
- But you dont actually have any evidence that they'll have to give any of it away in tax or how much the legal costs are do you?
- Yes im pretty sure the trust were aware that the day would come when the sellouts would find someone else to sell to. However I'm sure the trust also expected to be informed when they did. How can they insist in being in on any sale if they aren't told about it?, literally how?
- Well it may not mean should, the court will decide upon an appropriate reparation and that may include Jenkins and others buying shares. Im sorry, they willingly and knowingly carried out these acts of deception. They must have known there was a chance the trust wouldn't take kindly to it. And they have to live with the consequences. No sympathy.
- justice takes time unfortunately. And of course shouldn't be time barred. You're thinking of it wrong anyway. Both the sellouts and trust were in the safari truck together. The sellouts saw the lion, but decided not to tell the trust that danger was nearby (out of greed). The negligence of those who refused inform and protect their fellow shareholders should be investigated irrelevant of how much time has elapsed. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:27 - Nov 26 with 524 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:24 - Nov 26 by onehunglow |
It is Par and every subsequent post we see is evidence of that.
Any "justice" has now been tipped and it is clear petty jealousy ,hate and village squabblling vengeance is more important than our club. Somebody need this festering boil on the club and it IS about the club because the CLUB is the subject over the sale.Do people not see this ?Are they so wrapped up in hate? Yes they are.
Anyone not wanting action has been ,is and will get insulting filth which we are seeing with PS interlopers who pop on to here to have a go then report back to Cimla HQ.
It is beyond pathetic.
That said, just how many questions have been asked as to where the significant money for players sales went. Far greater issue |
Are you implying someone is taking money out of the club? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.