| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18649 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 10:36 - Nov 26 with 484 views | Treforys_Jack |
| 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 |
Not seen any evidence of "insulting filth". |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:42 - Nov 26 with 474 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:12 - Nov 26 by Treforys_Jack |
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. |
There was certainly arrogance within the Trust, from the leader all the way to comments such as “the tail wagging the dog”.
If they listened to that tail, much of which had far more experience than retired school teachers then they wouldn’t have pushed against legal action for so long. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:46 - Nov 26 with 472 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:27 - Nov 26 by Chief |
Are you implying someone is taking money out of the club? |
Read what is in front of you.
Now,just where did that profit from Siggi go?
THAT should be the sort of question we should be asking.
We are talking tens of millions |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:58 - Nov 26 with 468 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:42 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
There was certainly arrogance within the Trust, from the leader all the way to comments such as “the tail wagging the dog”.
If they listened to that tail, much of which had far more experience than retired school teachers then they wouldn’t have pushed against legal action for so long. |
Id say there's nothing more arrogant (or desperate) than a man who knowingly deceiving someone. Then after the act, going to wronged party and asking them to dispose of a document that invalidates the act which the man helped carry out!
That's arrogance! |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:58 - Nov 26 with 468 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:25 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- 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. |
- I just told you. They were rigid in their aims and goals and they did not adapt them to a situation that was changing around them. The first Americans came in and were turned away. That is a clear sign that the other owners wanted to sell. Which means that without voting rights they would be open to a whole world of issues in the future. They had to make it clear they wanted in on any deal; except they made the opposite noises.
- They shouldn’t have to be “told”. That’s my point in a nutshell. If your wife wanted to cheat on you and you stopped it before it got any further... then she did it again and went through with it. It is not a defence to say “I wasn’t told you weren’t happy”. That was clear from the first instance and things should have happened, it’s obvious.
- They will be skint because either scenario is useless to them. 1) they lose the case and probably spend the 800k they have on the bank doing so. 2) they win the case, lose all their shares and the money they get paid for them goes to lawyers and the taxman.
- It’s business, morals don’t exist. There is next to no chance the Trust will be getting £12m. They do t have a pot to p*ss in, in reality. Any solicitors that take them on would have to work on a no win no fee. Often that is 50% share of damages which I believe would be payable AFTER capital gains tax. But I overwhelmingly believe they won’t win the case anyway.
- You don’t need “evidence” to know they will need to pay tax or give legal fees away. That’s just the way it is. You need to be realistic, you seem to have a pie in the sky type attitude over it.
- I’m not asking you to sympathise with anyone. Just telling you how it is. These people may not even have the money 5 years later to buy them off the Trust. In fact I would be shocked if they did. The Trust had every chance to sort this as soon as it happened, they failed to - again. It’s not about being more annoyed with them than the previous owners, it’s about facing reality.
- You are wrong regarding the analogy. They were never in it together. One had personal interest and investment, the other had club interest and no personal financial interest. Lost value of shares for one group means less children’s inheritance, lost value of shares for the other meant almost nothing. Only one of those group was in place to protect the club over personal interests - that group failed to protect the club. Going after them 5 years later is futile. It really is. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:59 - Nov 26 with 466 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:46 - Nov 26 by onehunglow |
Read what is in front of you.
Now,just where did that profit from Siggi go?
THAT should be the sort of question we should be asking.
We are talking tens of millions |
Please do ask those questions then.
Make sure you don't destabilise the club when doing so though. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:00 - Nov 26 with 462 views | Treforys_Jack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:46 - Nov 26 by onehunglow |
Read what is in front of you.
Now,just where did that profit from Siggi go?
THAT should be the sort of question we should be asking.
We are talking tens of millions |
Quite simply we wasted it, Sanches, what was it £7,500,000, Clucas, Messa, Tabannou the list goes on and on. Ayew second time around, virtually the same as what we sold him for but vastly improved wages. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:04 - Nov 26 with 460 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:59 - Nov 26 by Chief |
Please do ask those questions then.
Make sure you don't destabilise the club when doing so though. |
How is it that a lone poster on a fans forum can destabilise a multi million pound business.
My point is ;our priorities are skewed.
Our club has been screwed over YET many accept it as we are little ol Swansea and really shouldn't be at the highest level league,ie,we should be lucky we got there at all . Not for me.Not for me.
Anyway,Ive asked that question before and had a load of old pony;so it was rhetorical.
Now then,next question ;where have the unjust 4 squirelled their grotesque profit | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:05 - Nov 26 with 460 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| 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 |
Spot on.
These people are a million steps behind. They were told every single step of the way and refused to listen each and every time.
The Trust actively rigged a vote (quite apt in today’s news) to push through their desire to go against legal action, against the advice of many people who knew a thing or two about this kind of thing. In fact, it was pretty obvious. They even paid for legal council (twice) who told them they had a strong legal case... yet still coaxed everyone to go against it.
Now after relegation they want to take them to court? Give over.
Revenge, revenge, revenge. The cost doesn’t matter, whether that’s destabilising the club or by any other means doesn’t matter to them, as long as certain people lose some cash (which they probably won’t anyway) then all is good in the world.
They had the chance to stop it, they didn’t. They had the chance to act after it happened, they didn’t. They have failed the fans. Suck it up, you were told is my message to them. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:10 - Nov 26 with 457 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:58 - Nov 26 by Chief |
Id say there's nothing more arrogant (or desperate) than a man who knowingly deceiving someone. Then after the act, going to wronged party and asking them to dispose of a document that invalidates the act which the man helped carry out!
That's arrogance! |
What’s your point? That’s how people act when they have personal investment in something. It’s not a shock.
You really need to understand the difference between personal investment and Trust shares. One directly helps a family for life and as such will transcend football, the other has very little value... in the value, and the football club becomes the priority (or at least should have).
That means they won’t act the same. The fact they didn’t even realise this basic concept says it all about how many steps behind the people running the Trust were.
Jenkins being arrogant and deceitful would be a reason to not want to go into business partnership with him... not a reason to destabilise the club to chase a probably fruitless revenge campaign. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 11:13]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:10 - Nov 26 with 457 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:05 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Spot on.
These people are a million steps behind. They were told every single step of the way and refused to listen each and every time.
The Trust actively rigged a vote (quite apt in today’s news) to push through their desire to go against legal action, against the advice of many people who knew a thing or two about this kind of thing. In fact, it was pretty obvious. They even paid for legal council (twice) who told them they had a strong legal case... yet still coaxed everyone to go against it.
Now after relegation they want to take them to court? Give over.
Revenge, revenge, revenge. The cost doesn’t matter, whether that’s destabilising the club or by any other means doesn’t matter to them, as long as certain people lose some cash (which they probably won’t anyway) then all is good in the world.
They had the chance to stop it, they didn’t. They had the chance to act after it happened, they didn’t. They have failed the fans. Suck it up, you were told is my message to them. |
If you look at the leading protagonists on sites like this,it is not real surprise as this hatred is the pre eminent topic and has been for years.
Incredible and I doubt many other clubs would have a body of fans that would want to process this madnes.
God knows,we are hardly chums but we can think subjectively and are not seemingly suffering from narrow minded village mentality. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:20 - Nov 26 with 451 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:58 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- I just told you. They were rigid in their aims and goals and they did not adapt them to a situation that was changing around them. The first Americans came in and were turned away. That is a clear sign that the other owners wanted to sell. Which means that without voting rights they would be open to a whole world of issues in the future. They had to make it clear they wanted in on any deal; except they made the opposite noises.
- They shouldn’t have to be “told”. That’s my point in a nutshell. If your wife wanted to cheat on you and you stopped it before it got any further... then she did it again and went through with it. It is not a defence to say “I wasn’t told you weren’t happy”. That was clear from the first instance and things should have happened, it’s obvious.
- They will be skint because either scenario is useless to them. 1) they lose the case and probably spend the 800k they have on the bank doing so. 2) they win the case, lose all their shares and the money they get paid for them goes to lawyers and the taxman.
- It’s business, morals don’t exist. There is next to no chance the Trust will be getting £12m. They do t have a pot to p*ss in, in reality. Any solicitors that take them on would have to work on a no win no fee. Often that is 50% share of damages which I believe would be payable AFTER capital gains tax. But I overwhelmingly believe they won’t win the case anyway.
- You don’t need “evidence” to know they will need to pay tax or give legal fees away. That’s just the way it is. You need to be realistic, you seem to have a pie in the sky type attitude over it.
- I’m not asking you to sympathise with anyone. Just telling you how it is. These people may not even have the money 5 years later to buy them off the Trust. In fact I would be shocked if they did. The Trust had every chance to sort this as soon as it happened, they failed to - again. It’s not about being more annoyed with them than the previous owners, it’s about facing reality.
- You are wrong regarding the analogy. They were never in it together. One had personal interest and investment, the other had club interest and no personal financial interest. Lost value of shares for one group means less children’s inheritance, lost value of shares for the other meant almost nothing. Only one of those group was in place to protect the club over personal interests - that group failed to protect the club. Going after them 5 years later is futile. It really is. |
- And none of that gives licence to the sellouts and buyers to act with impunity. Whether they assumed the trust did or didn't want to sell their shares was irrelevant. The fact is that would have been the decision of the trust at that time, they weren't given that chance.
- Haha but that wife is still an adulterer and is in the wrong! And its not the wife's place to assume you were aware either.
- Incorrect - if they lose, they keep their shares and will have spent money on legal fees (maybe not). If they win even by Conservative estimates they'll receive around £12mill pound after fees. So saying they'd be skint is a lie isn't it?
- Yea and people who don't act with morals and dont make sure all loose ends are tied up open themselves up to proceedings. That's life. They have to realise there are consequences for actions.
- All complete conjecture there on how much the trust will receive then. No evidence at all to back that up.
- Im very realistic - reducing down from a total of 21mill to 12mill is a big reduction.
- How can you think they won't win? You've already accepted Huws shadiness and your version hasn't deviated from them actually being deceived.
- that's not for the trust to consider really - that's down to judge to dish out reparations. If the sellouts were stupid enough to not only sign off on the sale while knowingly breaking a legally binding document and then spent all the proceeds knowing all along that legal action could be on the horizon that's their own fault. As you say this hasn't come out of the blue. Proceedings have been going on a while. Theyd also be dull to think it would just go away. That's reality.
- Again? Again what?
- Yes unfortunately we were all sold a pup by the selling pretending they cared for the club. That's an indictment on them though. Not the fans. As above the trust getting this money is hardly futile.
You still haven't confirmed how literally the trust were meant to have known or stopped this? Its easy to make empty statements like without basis or specifics. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:22 - Nov 26 with 449 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:04 - Nov 26 by onehunglow |
How is it that a lone poster on a fans forum can destabilise a multi million pound business.
My point is ;our priorities are skewed.
Our club has been screwed over YET many accept it as we are little ol Swansea and really shouldn't be at the highest level league,ie,we should be lucky we got there at all . Not for me.Not for me.
Anyway,Ive asked that question before and had a load of old pony;so it was rhetorical.
Now then,next question ;where have the unjust 4 squirelled their grotesque profit |
So the club has been screwed?
And most fans are little ol Swansea and accepting of it.
But trust are wrong for not accepting it? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:28 - Nov 26 with 445 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:10 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
What’s your point? That’s how people act when they have personal investment in something. It’s not a shock.
You really need to understand the difference between personal investment and Trust shares. One directly helps a family for life and as such will transcend football, the other has very little value... in the value, and the football club becomes the priority (or at least should have).
That means they won’t act the same. The fact they didn’t even realise this basic concept says it all about how many steps behind the people running the Trust were.
Jenkins being arrogant and deceitful would be a reason to not want to go into business partnership with him... not a reason to destabilise the club to chase a probably fruitless revenge campaign. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 11:13]
|
- the trust have an investment. Aren't they allowed to protect it? Well it is a shock that a chairman of a company would be so brazen. But that's besides the point. It shouldn't have happened and there'll be consequences. That's life. That's how people act.
- Is any of that legally relevant. A beautiful story nonetheless. It doesn't excuse deviousness and illegality. These are men not on the breadline. You have to understand that. You said it was business. Here it is. Grow up.
- The club isn't being taken to court and Jenkins hasn't attended a single board meeting since his sacking so thats another moot point. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 11:35]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:49 - Nov 26 with 414 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:20 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- And none of that gives licence to the sellouts and buyers to act with impunity. Whether they assumed the trust did or didn't want to sell their shares was irrelevant. The fact is that would have been the decision of the trust at that time, they weren't given that chance.
- Haha but that wife is still an adulterer and is in the wrong! And its not the wife's place to assume you were aware either.
- Incorrect - if they lose, they keep their shares and will have spent money on legal fees (maybe not). If they win even by Conservative estimates they'll receive around £12mill pound after fees. So saying they'd be skint is a lie isn't it?
- Yea and people who don't act with morals and dont make sure all loose ends are tied up open themselves up to proceedings. That's life. They have to realise there are consequences for actions.
- All complete conjecture there on how much the trust will receive then. No evidence at all to back that up.
- Im very realistic - reducing down from a total of 21mill to 12mill is a big reduction.
- How can you think they won't win? You've already accepted Huws shadiness and your version hasn't deviated from them actually being deceived.
- that's not for the trust to consider really - that's down to judge to dish out reparations. If the sellouts were stupid enough to not only sign off on the sale while knowingly breaking a legally binding document and then spent all the proceeds knowing all along that legal action could be on the horizon that's their own fault. As you say this hasn't come out of the blue. Proceedings have been going on a while. Theyd also be dull to think it would just go away. That's reality.
- Again? Again what?
- Yes unfortunately we were all sold a pup by the selling pretending they cared for the club. That's an indictment on them though. Not the fans. As above the trust getting this money is hardly futile.
You still haven't confirmed how literally the trust were meant to have known or stopped this? Its easy to make empty statements like without basis or specifics. |
- I’m not saying they had a licence to do it. But they had personal shares they wanted to sell. The Trust made it clear they didn’t want to sell theirs and they blocked the last sale. The Trust should have said they want part of any deal as personal interest were always going to be perused. Always.
- Nobody is saying they weren’t morally wrong. But that’s life unfortunately, in business you have to be street smart and aware. The Trust weren’t and got burned. They had a chance to fix it after too, and failed.
- If they lose they will keep their shares but their shares are worthless. Their best bet is to hold on to them and hope the next owners down the line will want to work with them and/or take the dividends when they come along. But they have to be a lot more professional than they have been for that to become somewhat of a reality.
- If the Trust said that 5 years ago “loose ends, consequences etc”. However a lot of time and many decisions have passed since then weakening their case. It’s over. Move on.
- You don’t need evidence to know that a massive chunk of anything they receive will have to be given away. Just common sense. Call it conjecture or no evidence if you want. There is no evidence I wouldn’t be able to fly if I jumped out the window - an educated guess suggests I wouldn’t be able to though, so I shall make the smart decision not to.
- There is no chance the Trust will get £21m. As I said, I highly doubt the old board even have that. £21m minus capital gains tax is £14.5m ish, 40% for a no win no fee (which is the upper average range) means you take off another £9m. Leaves them with £6m in the bank. For what?
- Huws shadiness isn’t proof of prejudice. That’s just evidence of Huw being shady. 5 years have passed, the whole club has been devalued, decisions have repeatedly been made not to take them to court. The picture has changed.
- not sure what you mean by “again” “again”.
- I have explained it time and time again. You don’t seem to be reading it. Once Charles Noell came in then it became clear the other shareholders wanted to sell. The Trust should have then realised that if they all sell, it will leave the Trust without any meaningful voting rights and their shares as a result would devalue - they should have made it clear they wanted in on any deal, yet they stated the opposite. I really can’t say that anymore than I have. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:55 - Nov 26 with 411 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:28 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- the trust have an investment. Aren't they allowed to protect it? Well it is a shock that a chairman of a company would be so brazen. But that's besides the point. It shouldn't have happened and there'll be consequences. That's life. That's how people act.
- Is any of that legally relevant. A beautiful story nonetheless. It doesn't excuse deviousness and illegality. These are men not on the breadline. You have to understand that. You said it was business. Here it is. Grow up.
- The club isn't being taken to court and Jenkins hasn't attended a single board meeting since his sacking so thats another moot point. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 11:35]
|
- The Trust do not have an investment, they have shares.
- Allowed to protect it? It should have been priority number 1. That was by knowing the picture had changed and adapting. They now find themselves with a heap of worthless shares (essentially).
- There won’t be any consequences. There may have been, but there certainly won’t be any now. No meaningful consequences anyway. Maybe for the club; but not for anyone else. You can bookmark this and hold me to it.
- Nothing that happened was illegal. Immoral maybe, not illegal. Why isn’t the police involved? Whether they are on the breadline or not is irrelevant, it’s business. Morgan apart, they weren’t rich men. Well off maybe, but a million miles from securing the future of their family. That was always going to come before a football club.
- I didn’t say the club were being taken to court. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:57 - Nov 26 with 409 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:22 - Nov 26 by Chief |
So the club has been screwed?
And most fans are little ol Swansea and accepting of it.
But trust are wrong for not accepting it? |
You do realise the fans and the Trust voted to not take them to court right? Openly recommended it, constructed a vote to ensure it and the fans did exactly that.
Sorry but from that moment both the Trust and the fans as members lost all credibility. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:02 - Nov 26 with 406 views | vetchonian |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:10 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
What’s your point? That’s how people act when they have personal investment in something. It’s not a shock.
You really need to understand the difference between personal investment and Trust shares. One directly helps a family for life and as such will transcend football, the other has very little value... in the value, and the football club becomes the priority (or at least should have).
That means they won’t act the same. The fact they didn’t even realise this basic concept says it all about how many steps behind the people running the Trust were.
Jenkins being arrogant and deceitful would be a reason to not want to go into business partnership with him... not a reason to destabilise the club to chase a probably fruitless revenge campaign. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 11:13]
|
And how much was that perosnal investment?
I think initially it was £50K how much before selling his shares did receive in return for that investment?
Excluding dividends he was earning at the end over £500K per annum so I think he had seen more than a 10% return on his investment!! SO why the need to be greedy and "panic" sell
The reason for the sale is given that the board could no longer support the club as it needed a better financial base now we were in the PL ,,,,why did the board never sit with the Trust and explain that things needed to change look for solutions to retain the "local" ownership...? There were issues at trh Trust....they were too trusting much has been documented about the pally arrangments with the supporters director and the board but the sellouts hung him out to dry!!!!! There was a huge amount of duplicity but to say that personal investments were at risk is crazy HJ MM and LD have all made a return on those initial investments before profiting form the sale
This action is not about revenge is it trying to recover some value for the shares rendered valueless by the sale. Who wouldwant to by these 21% of shares when themajority of shares 68% plus the voting rights for a further 12% of the shares are owned by one other entity giving them control? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:11 - Nov 26 with 400 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:49 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- I’m not saying they had a licence to do it. But they had personal shares they wanted to sell. The Trust made it clear they didn’t want to sell theirs and they blocked the last sale. The Trust should have said they want part of any deal as personal interest were always going to be perused. Always.
- Nobody is saying they weren’t morally wrong. But that’s life unfortunately, in business you have to be street smart and aware. The Trust weren’t and got burned. They had a chance to fix it after too, and failed.
- If they lose they will keep their shares but their shares are worthless. Their best bet is to hold on to them and hope the next owners down the line will want to work with them and/or take the dividends when they come along. But they have to be a lot more professional than they have been for that to become somewhat of a reality.
- If the Trust said that 5 years ago “loose ends, consequences etc”. However a lot of time and many decisions have passed since then weakening their case. It’s over. Move on.
- You don’t need evidence to know that a massive chunk of anything they receive will have to be given away. Just common sense. Call it conjecture or no evidence if you want. There is no evidence I wouldn’t be able to fly if I jumped out the window - an educated guess suggests I wouldn’t be able to though, so I shall make the smart decision not to.
- There is no chance the Trust will get £21m. As I said, I highly doubt the old board even have that. £21m minus capital gains tax is £14.5m ish, 40% for a no win no fee (which is the upper average range) means you take off another £9m. Leaves them with £6m in the bank. For what?
- Huws shadiness isn’t proof of prejudice. That’s just evidence of Huw being shady. 5 years have passed, the whole club has been devalued, decisions have repeatedly been made not to take them to court. The picture has changed.
- not sure what you mean by “again” “again”.
- I have explained it time and time again. You don’t seem to be reading it. Once Charles Noell came in then it became clear the other shareholders wanted to sell. The Trust should have then realised that if they all sell, it will leave the Trust without any meaningful voting rights and their shares as a result would devalue - they should have made it clear they wanted in on any deal, yet they stated the opposite. I really can’t say that anymore than I have. |
- again whether it's their personal shares and what they want to do with the proceeds are irrelevant. The sellouts shouldn't have asssumed anything. That's terrible business. Leaves you open to proceedings. They could have avoided all this. The trust never at any point said they'd never want to sell. Besides the point, they should have been informed anyway. Always.
- More than morally wrong though isn't it. They broke a legally binding shareholders agreement and also falsified other documents to facilitate the sale. In business you have to act legally. The sellers didnt and could get burned. The Americans also failed. If they'd straight forward offered the same terms at the same time as they bid for the 68%, they'd be covered. They declined to do so.
- So the trusts shares would be worthless? How? Wouldn't inflation and promotion come to the rescue? Or sell them now and get the money. Far safer bet than relying on things outside of their control. The Americans have already broken one shareholders agreement. Who's to say they wouldn't sell just their shares and the trust be left behind again?
- Yea your entitled to your opinion. I just disagree with it and think it won't be worthless. If it was the trust wouldnt be taking the case on.
- Incorrect, the trust have acted exemplary the whole way, taking onboard legal advice and exploring other avenues. Thos strengthens their case. It isn't over, the members have voted and its happening - you better start believing it!
- It does prove prejudice. It proves he put the deal through without going to the trust to renegotiate the agreement when he received the bid. He didn't he decided to press on and try to scurry about after. And even then ploughed on. Ample evidence.
- You stuck the word again in there. Dont worry about it.
- Yes you've repeated your skewed view repeatedly. It doesn't change. Anything. Well i never said they'd receive 21mill but thats roughly the gross amount on the same terms as the sell outs received.
- Well we do not know that for certain for a start because they didn't actually sell did they? And whether the sellouts didn't or did assume what the trust wanted to do is not relevant. They can plead ignorance all they want, but can't see that working because they so obviously and carefully excluded the trust. They carried out a lot of planning to do this. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:11 - Nov 26 with 400 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:02 - Nov 26 by vetchonian |
And how much was that perosnal investment?
I think initially it was £50K how much before selling his shares did receive in return for that investment?
Excluding dividends he was earning at the end over £500K per annum so I think he had seen more than a 10% return on his investment!! SO why the need to be greedy and "panic" sell
The reason for the sale is given that the board could no longer support the club as it needed a better financial base now we were in the PL ,,,,why did the board never sit with the Trust and explain that things needed to change look for solutions to retain the "local" ownership...? There were issues at trh Trust....they were too trusting much has been documented about the pally arrangments with the supporters director and the board but the sellouts hung him out to dry!!!!! There was a huge amount of duplicity but to say that personal investments were at risk is crazy HJ MM and LD have all made a return on those initial investments before profiting form the sale
This action is not about revenge is it trying to recover some value for the shares rendered valueless by the sale. Who wouldwant to by these 21% of shares when themajority of shares 68% plus the voting rights for a further 12% of the shares are owned by one other entity giving them control? |
It doesn’t matter what the initial investment was.
An initial investment in a lottery ticket is only £2, the fact was it then essentially won and became worth millions and millions, enough to set their families and loved ones up for life. Some of these shareholders of which didn’t even support the Swans prior to investing - they were always going to cash that ticket in. Always.
The club had reached its peak and was very clearly about to start going backwards, that means shares devalue and so does salary. They had to get out when the value was highest and they got blocked by the Trust who had clearly stated they did not want to sell. The second time they excluded them from talks and the rest is history.
Put it this way. If I invested £50k in Darlington and they got to the PL, and I had the chance to sell my shares for £7m, I would be moving hell and high water to sell - as would you if you were honest. Yes they were deceitful but as I have said, business often is. Not everyone had signed the shareholders agreement remember.
To me they had a window to take legal action and failed to do so. Waiting to see what happens and then taking them to court is a horrific look. I genuinely think they will get zero from it. I have always been a staunch advocate of legal action, even when most were actively against it.
But the time has passed. We need to move on and people need to realise the continuous errors of the Trust have failed us. Very disappointed it ended this way from all concerned, but ended it has. Best bet is to hold on to the shares and hope for dividends or a closer working relationship with the next owners. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 12:12]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:15 - Nov 26 with 395 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| 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! |
There ore millions of investors worldwhide buying shares with very little control of the company they have shares in. Almost every Pension fund has holdings in big profitable companys worth billions. None have a controolling interest. The maximum is probaby equivalent to the Trusts.
The Trusts shares are very valuable. Some argued they were 'worthless' to give Members the 'nothing to lose' mentality in the legal case vote.
The buyers of the Trust shares are most likely to be aquaintences of the US owners like SIlverstein. The Trust have not fostered good relations so not much chance of them helping the Trust out. Good reltions means good business. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:23 - Nov 26 with 389 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:11 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- again whether it's their personal shares and what they want to do with the proceeds are irrelevant. The sellouts shouldn't have asssumed anything. That's terrible business. Leaves you open to proceedings. They could have avoided all this. The trust never at any point said they'd never want to sell. Besides the point, they should have been informed anyway. Always.
- More than morally wrong though isn't it. They broke a legally binding shareholders agreement and also falsified other documents to facilitate the sale. In business you have to act legally. The sellers didnt and could get burned. The Americans also failed. If they'd straight forward offered the same terms at the same time as they bid for the 68%, they'd be covered. They declined to do so.
- So the trusts shares would be worthless? How? Wouldn't inflation and promotion come to the rescue? Or sell them now and get the money. Far safer bet than relying on things outside of their control. The Americans have already broken one shareholders agreement. Who's to say they wouldn't sell just their shares and the trust be left behind again?
- Yea your entitled to your opinion. I just disagree with it and think it won't be worthless. If it was the trust wouldnt be taking the case on.
- Incorrect, the trust have acted exemplary the whole way, taking onboard legal advice and exploring other avenues. Thos strengthens their case. It isn't over, the members have voted and its happening - you better start believing it!
- It does prove prejudice. It proves he put the deal through without going to the trust to renegotiate the agreement when he received the bid. He didn't he decided to press on and try to scurry about after. And even then ploughed on. Ample evidence.
- You stuck the word again in there. Dont worry about it.
- Yes you've repeated your skewed view repeatedly. It doesn't change. Anything. Well i never said they'd receive 21mill but thats roughly the gross amount on the same terms as the sell outs received.
- Well we do not know that for certain for a start because they didn't actually sell did they? And whether the sellouts didn't or did assume what the trust wanted to do is not relevant. They can plead ignorance all they want, but can't see that working because they so obviously and carefully excluded the trust. They carried out a lot of planning to do this. |
- There will be no meaningful proceedings. So whatever you protestations of what they should or shouldn’t have done - it’s worked for them. Be that the incompetence of the Trust or the naivety of the fans is down to interpretation, probably a healthy dollop of both.
- Is it a legally binding shareholders agreement? They didn’t even sign it and don’t buy the argument of assumed agreement.
- The Trusts shares are essentially worthless because they are essentially unsaleable. They have no voting rights so who would buy them? Nobody. The only real value in them is the potential for influence in a good working relationship or from dividends. But the shares as a saleable asset isn’t really much at all.
- “If it wasn’t then the Trust wouldn’t be taking it on” is a statement based on a competent organisation with some kind of positive judgement ability. To me that’s a bit like saying “Jeffrey Dhamer ate there so it must be a nice place”. They have never shown the ability to make sound decisions so amazed to think you are holding their actions as evidence of good decisions now.
- “The trust have acted exemplary” - I genuinely don’t know what to say to that. It has been one of the most incompetent and error ridden organisations I have ever seen. That isn’t even an exaggeration, it has almost been a running joke. They struggled for years to even communicate after telling fans they are working on it time and time again. A simple thing like that couldn’t even be coordinated. The organisation has been an embarrassment unfortunately.
- I can’t keep responding to every ”-“ sentence you make, the majority of which are repeated questions you have already put to me. But happy to go through anything in isolation, this is not a fruitful or efficient way to conduct a discussion. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 12:24]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:25 - Nov 26 with 385 views | Treforys_Jack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:22 - Nov 26 by Chief |
So the club has been screwed?
And most fans are little ol Swansea and accepting of it.
But trust are wrong for not accepting it? |
Chief, your confusing him now. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:26 - Nov 26 with 385 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:11 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
It doesn’t matter what the initial investment was.
An initial investment in a lottery ticket is only £2, the fact was it then essentially won and became worth millions and millions, enough to set their families and loved ones up for life. Some of these shareholders of which didn’t even support the Swans prior to investing - they were always going to cash that ticket in. Always.
The club had reached its peak and was very clearly about to start going backwards, that means shares devalue and so does salary. They had to get out when the value was highest and they got blocked by the Trust who had clearly stated they did not want to sell. The second time they excluded them from talks and the rest is history.
Put it this way. If I invested £50k in Darlington and they got to the PL, and I had the chance to sell my shares for £7m, I would be moving hell and high water to sell - as would you if you were honest. Yes they were deceitful but as I have said, business often is. Not everyone had signed the shareholders agreement remember.
To me they had a window to take legal action and failed to do so. Waiting to see what happens and then taking them to court is a horrific look. I genuinely think they will get zero from it. I have always been a staunch advocate of legal action, even when most were actively against it.
But the time has passed. We need to move on and people need to realise the continuous errors of the Trust have failed us. Very disappointed it ended this way from all concerned, but ended it has. Best bet is to hold on to the shares and hope for dividends or a closer working relationship with the next owners. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 12:12]
|
- There is no window to take legal action. Youve made that up.
- Again you're assuming the trust didn't want to sell. That's a silly tact. Make sure. Dot the i's cross the t's.
- a lot of crimes are common, doesn't mean there should be no consequences. Glad you've accepted they were deceitful.
- You have to accept this is happening.
- and yes if the trust retain shares let's hope the club's necy owners aren't complicit in a plot to exclude and deceive. Hardly the best way to endear yourselves is it. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:29 - Nov 26 with 380 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:15 - Nov 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There ore millions of investors worldwhide buying shares with very little control of the company they have shares in. Almost every Pension fund has holdings in big profitable companys worth billions. None have a controolling interest. The maximum is probaby equivalent to the Trusts.
The Trusts shares are very valuable. Some argued they were 'worthless' to give Members the 'nothing to lose' mentality in the legal case vote.
The buyers of the Trust shares are most likely to be aquaintences of the US owners like SIlverstein. The Trust have not fostered good relations so not much chance of them helping the Trust out. Good reltions means good business. |
Don’t agree with that.
I can’t think of anyone who bought 21% of a football club for £20m+ when another consortium has complete control.
I may be wrong but sounds an utterly bizarre prospect to me.
Most companies have profits and there are liquid returns on those. Football clubs are money pits and the money is in the control. Joint company ventures such as Tan and Berjaya group as well as his political position with Visit Malaysia for example.
But I don’t see any benefit in buying a 21% share of a football club at the price of the rest of the shares that come with control. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.