| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18651 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 12:33 - Nov 26 with 492 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:26 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- 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. |
- I haven’t made anything up. If you mean they can take legal action at anytime, then of course they can. But there was only a short window to which they had a strong case and a decent chance of a successful outcome. They failed to take that opportunity.
- I am not assuming they didn’t want to sell. They stated it several times.
- It may well happen. Go for your life. My point is that they aren’t getting anything positive out of it. They just aren’t. But they will find that out.
- You can hope what you like regarding the next owners, but they may well decide to sell their shares without warning. And of course would be completely within their rights to. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:38 - Nov 26 with 482 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:23 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- 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]
|
-we'll have to see about that when we get to court wont we. As the qc said the trust have a good case. That is a meaningful and could result in damages.
- Why did Huw try to get the agreement removed if it had no significance? You cant be deluded to think it's meaningless? Huw wasn't.
- yea exactly why the trust are doing this - to potentially sell the shares that you say are worthless. They evidently aren't.
- not sure the relevance of dahmer. Im just saying the trust have followed due process. Something the buyers and sellouts failed to do.
- i haven't denied anywhere or said anything about past conduct, none of that is relevant to this situation. As above, in this situation they've followed the advised legal process.
- no please don't if you don't fancy it, im just replyng to your points. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:45 - Nov 26 with 474 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:38 - Nov 26 by Chief |
-we'll have to see about that when we get to court wont we. As the qc said the trust have a good case. That is a meaningful and could result in damages.
- Why did Huw try to get the agreement removed if it had no significance? You cant be deluded to think it's meaningless? Huw wasn't.
- yea exactly why the trust are doing this - to potentially sell the shares that you say are worthless. They evidently aren't.
- not sure the relevance of dahmer. Im just saying the trust have followed due process. Something the buyers and sellouts failed to do.
- i haven't denied anywhere or said anything about past conduct, none of that is relevant to this situation. As above, in this situation they've followed the advised legal process.
- no please don't if you don't fancy it, im just replyng to your points. |
- the QC said that years ago. Things have changed since then.
- Huw is not the sharpest tool in the box. The shareholders agreement was not signed by everyone, although I believe he signed it (someone will correct me if wrong there), but that doesn’t mean it’s binding. It’s an incomplete document.
- Indeed, but they won’t sell them and I doubt the men have the money to anyway, it was half’s decade ago. They are essentially worthless in terms of a selling prospect but not worthless to the trust who can gain dividends from them or have a say in the running of the club with the right owners.
- no idea what your last two points are in reference to. That’s the issue in posting in this manner, half the time I have no idea what you are responding to. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:46 - Nov 26 with 471 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:33 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- I haven’t made anything up. If you mean they can take legal action at anytime, then of course they can. But there was only a short window to which they had a strong case and a decent chance of a successful outcome. They failed to take that opportunity.
- I am not assuming they didn’t want to sell. They stated it several times.
- It may well happen. Go for your life. My point is that they aren’t getting anything positive out of it. They just aren’t. But they will find that out.
- You can hope what you like regarding the next owners, but they may well decide to sell their shares without warning. And of course would be completely within their rights to. |
- The complete opposite. As has been stated already, the trust explored other forms of recourse that takes time. This demonstrates to the judge that they at least tried. Rushing would have been foolish.
- they never said they would never sell. And if they did, circumstances can change. Doesn't mean they should be excluded from any sale. They should have been informed.
- Depends how they go about the sale. All of this is the result of their poor business practices. Lets hope they've learnt. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:50 - Nov 26 with 466 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:46 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- The complete opposite. As has been stated already, the trust explored other forms of recourse that takes time. This demonstrates to the judge that they at least tried. Rushing would have been foolish.
- they never said they would never sell. And if they did, circumstances can change. Doesn't mean they should be excluded from any sale. They should have been informed.
- Depends how they go about the sale. All of this is the result of their poor business practices. Lets hope they've learnt. |
- It doesn’t take 5 years.
- They did say they were not interested in selling.
- It’s not poor business practice, they are now very rich men. It could have been poor if the Trust acted properly - however they didn’t. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:51 - Nov 26 with 462 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:45 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- the QC said that years ago. Things have changed since then.
- Huw is not the sharpest tool in the box. The shareholders agreement was not signed by everyone, although I believe he signed it (someone will correct me if wrong there), but that doesn’t mean it’s binding. It’s an incomplete document.
- Indeed, but they won’t sell them and I doubt the men have the money to anyway, it was half’s decade ago. They are essentially worthless in terms of a selling prospect but not worthless to the trust who can gain dividends from them or have a say in the running of the club with the right owners.
- no idea what your last two points are in reference to. That’s the issue in posting in this manner, half the time I have no idea what you are responding to. |
- but it could have stayed the same. If anything looking from the outside in looks stronger.
- Why did he and his lawyer then who presumably is more aware than Huw try to get invalidated? Because Farnell recognised its significance too. Huw was competent enough to run the Swans as well as he did for years. He knew what he was doing.
- or sell to the Americans / sellouts and gain monetary value. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:53 - Nov 26 with 461 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Swansea City’s Supporters Trust have told the club they won’t back a buy-out of shares at the Liberty Stadium club — and urged shareholders not to sell to American investors.
WalesOnline revealed yesterday how the Swans are in early talks over a potential bid that could see shares handed over to US businessmen, with the club admitting to discussing the possibility of exchanging what they called a “small” percentage of shares for investment.
It is not known which what shareholders would consider possibly selling their holdings. However, the Supporters Trust — who own more than 21% of the club’s shares — have broken cover to say they do not believe there is a need for the club to go ahead with any deal at this point in time.
Having been part of the locally-drive consortium that rescued the club in 2002 and helped oversee a rise from football obscurity to the top-half of the Premier League, the Trust have stressed they have no wish to let go of their current holding.
And while the club’s comments on the talks yesterday insisted any deal would have to be “in the club’s and the fans’ best interests”, the Trust are adamant that this is not the time to change the Swans’ current set-up.
The Trust have a director on the board in Huw Cooze, who would have been privy to discussions over potentially interested parties that were confirmed to WalesOnline yesterday.
In a statement, Trust chairman Phil Sumbler said: “We are extremely proud of the part that we have played in the progression of the football club since the current arrangement was set up in 2002.
“During that time the club has progressed from the wrong end of League Two to the top half of the Premier League whilst winning our first major trophy on the way.
“The way in which we (as a club) work has been recognised around the world as a role model for clubs to follow and given the current strong position of the team and the club we do not believe that this is the correct time for the ownership or set up of the club to change.
“We fully recognise the excellent job that the current directors and shareholders have done, and our desire would be for this set-up to continue and for us to continue our progress in the same way that we have for the last 12 years.
“Our message to the other shareholders has therefore been that we do not wish to relinquish our shareholding in the football club.” | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:54 - Nov 26 with 460 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:50 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- It doesn’t take 5 years.
- They did say they were not interested in selling.
- It’s not poor business practice, they are now very rich men. It could have been poor if the Trust acted properly - however they didn’t. |
- It evidently does - including external factors.
- They didnt say they didn't want to sell at that particular time to those particular sellers.
- leaving yourself open to litigation and committing fraud in the process is very bad business. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:56 - Nov 26 with 458 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Question and answer session on the Trust website from 2015:-
Q4: Is the Supporters Trust negotiating to sell any of its shares?
A4: No. The Supporters Trust owns 21.1% of the shares in the Football Club and it sees no reason to reduce its holding.
Q5: Why not?
A5: The Supporters Trust was set up with the following aims:
- To maintain a professional football club in Swansea.
- To bring football closer to its community.
- To have an elected Supporter Representative on the Board of Swansea City Football Club.
- To raise sufficient funds to buy a stake in the football club in pursuance of the above.
It is the view of the Trust Board that to sell shares in the football club would be inconsistent with the principal aims and objectives of the Supporters Trust. The aim of the Supporters Trust remains to acquire more shares in the club, not reduce its holding. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:59 - Nov 26 with 456 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:54 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- It evidently does - including external factors.
- They didnt say they didn't want to sell at that particular time to those particular sellers.
- leaving yourself open to litigation and committing fraud in the process is very bad business. |
- It doesn’t. You are assuming the delay was down to tirelessly seeking other solutions. It was not.
- They made it clear that year they did not want to sell. I have since proved that with their own printed words.
- It’s not bad business. Litigation and successful litigation are very different things. Are we going to place a bet on who wins? I’m up for it. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:59 - Nov 26 with 456 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:53 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Swansea City’s Supporters Trust have told the club they won’t back a buy-out of shares at the Liberty Stadium club — and urged shareholders not to sell to American investors.
WalesOnline revealed yesterday how the Swans are in early talks over a potential bid that could see shares handed over to US businessmen, with the club admitting to discussing the possibility of exchanging what they called a “small” percentage of shares for investment.
It is not known which what shareholders would consider possibly selling their holdings. However, the Supporters Trust — who own more than 21% of the club’s shares — have broken cover to say they do not believe there is a need for the club to go ahead with any deal at this point in time.
Having been part of the locally-drive consortium that rescued the club in 2002 and helped oversee a rise from football obscurity to the top-half of the Premier League, the Trust have stressed they have no wish to let go of their current holding.
And while the club’s comments on the talks yesterday insisted any deal would have to be “in the club’s and the fans’ best interests”, the Trust are adamant that this is not the time to change the Swans’ current set-up.
The Trust have a director on the board in Huw Cooze, who would have been privy to discussions over potentially interested parties that were confirmed to WalesOnline yesterday.
In a statement, Trust chairman Phil Sumbler said: “We are extremely proud of the part that we have played in the progression of the football club since the current arrangement was set up in 2002.
“During that time the club has progressed from the wrong end of League Two to the top half of the Premier League whilst winning our first major trophy on the way.
“The way in which we (as a club) work has been recognised around the world as a role model for clubs to follow and given the current strong position of the team and the club we do not believe that this is the correct time for the ownership or set up of the club to change.
“We fully recognise the excellent job that the current directors and shareholders have done, and our desire would be for this set-up to continue and for us to continue our progress in the same way that we have for the last 12 years.
“Our message to the other shareholders has therefore been that we do not wish to relinquish our shareholding in the football club.” |
That isn't referring to this sale though is it? "a small percentage" of shares is not what happened | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:00 - Nov 26 with 455 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:59 - Nov 26 by Chief |
That isn't referring to this sale though is it? "a small percentage" of shares is not what happened |
The Trust 2015:
“It is the view of the Trust Board that to sell shares in the football club would be inconsistent with the principal aims and objectives of the Supporters Trust. The aim of the Supporters Trust remains to acquire more shares in the club, not reduce its holding.” | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:03 - Nov 26 with 448 views | Dr_Parnassus |
The Trust 2015:
The heads of term sheet was signed on behalf of the selling shareholders (as agreed at that meeting) by Brian Katzen, and as a Trust we then requested a meeting with the potential share purchasers to make the points that we have already made in the press but also privately to the other shareholders which are:
We have no intention to sell or dilute our shareholding. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:06 - Nov 26 with 446 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:02 - Nov 25 by Treforys_Jack |
Res, you've been mullered mate. |
No not at all Treforys. I only try to explain and provide an alternative point of view. There is no right and wrong.
While I have not read or ever seen the Shareholders agreement I have some concept about what it it was or is.
Between 2002 2016 the several shareholers reportedly had a common interest and worked together under agreed understandings. They presumably agreed that no single shareholder would be dominant and no one would have a majority. Ths was their agreement.
This was potential change in 2015 when the first US offer came in. The buyer, I read in the press, wanted to become the dominant shareholder but not the majority shareholder in return for a significant cash investment. The Board declined the offer. Clearly the prevoius agreement would not have been valid in this case. At the time in 2015 the Trust board member stated they did not want to sell their shares , and indeed stated they would never sell their shares. (from press reports )
Clearly any shareholders agreement existing at that point needed ammendement to allow for new dominant or majority owner buying into the club. This allows for growth and natural growing pains of the club. Significant new investment by new investors could not possibly work wiithin the framework of the original ageement.
Given that the other shareholders were keen to sell one could argue that the majority no longer agreed with the agreement that has reportedly existed up to that point. An agreement is an agreement until circumstance chance and it no longer is agreed between the parties. Asking for the invalidation of any previous agreements does not seem to be totally unreasonable to me.
The Trust argue that have some sort of contract / agreement that prevents the formation of a dominant or majority dhareholder and their rights have not been honoured. The agreement is still valid. They could presumably therefore have stopped the sale in 2016. They endeavour to apply the original agreement whatever it was, and decline to render it invalid. They presumably would argue the replacement of several international investors by a single US investor group has weakned their position in some way while accepting they had 21% before the sale and 21% after the sale. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 13:45]
|  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:06 - Nov 26 with 445 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:59 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- It doesn’t. You are assuming the delay was down to tirelessly seeking other solutions. It was not.
- They made it clear that year they did not want to sell. I have since proved that with their own printed words.
- It’s not bad business. Litigation and successful litigation are very different things. Are we going to place a bet on who wins? I’m up for it. |
- What was it down to then? Are you just assuming they wasted time?
- that's irrelevant anyway. You still dont deceive your other shareholders. If they were fully confident that the trust didn't want to sell why didn't they ask then? Takes assumption out of it then. And why keep them in the dark? That bit doesn't make sense does it.
- ive said if the trust lose, that's it, ill accept it and move on. Im. Not making bets with people i speak to on the Internet sorry. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:08 - Nov 26 with 443 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:00 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
The Trust 2015:
“It is the view of the Trust Board that to sell shares in the football club would be inconsistent with the principal aims and objectives of the Supporters Trust. The aim of the Supporters Trust remains to acquire more shares in the club, not reduce its holding.” |
And in an ideal world the trust wouldn't want to sell. But they weren't given the opportunity to do so. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:11 - Nov 26 with 442 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:06 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- What was it down to then? Are you just assuming they wasted time?
- that's irrelevant anyway. You still dont deceive your other shareholders. If they were fully confident that the trust didn't want to sell why didn't they ask then? Takes assumption out of it then. And why keep them in the dark? That bit doesn't make sense does it.
- ive said if the trust lose, that's it, ill accept it and move on. Im. Not making bets with people i speak to on the Internet sorry. |
- Wasted time. Accepted the situation at times in place of a working relationship and say in the club. Convenience. You name it. But to pretend they have been trying to find solutions for the last 5 years is just laughable and won’t hold any weight.
- You are making a moral point. Which is irrelevant. They aren’t going to be sued for being naughty boys. They wanted to keep them in the dark because they would scupper the deal. They made it clear many times they don’t want to sell and there was an incomplete shareholders agreement so they went agreed to get the deal done. Again, that’s business.
- Shows your confidence levels then. Whenever you want to then I’m ready. They aren’t winning this one. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 13:16]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:13 - Nov 26 with 436 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:08 - Nov 26 by Chief |
And in an ideal world the trust wouldn't want to sell. But they weren't given the opportunity to do so. |
Yes they were, they said no and then went on to state privately and publicly that selling their shareholding does not interest them and goes against their core aims and it was their aim to increase and not decrease their shares.
So the next sale that came along weeks later they sold without them involved.
Key error from the Trust and a ridiculous position to have taken. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:21 - Nov 26 with 428 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:11 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- Wasted time. Accepted the situation at times in place of a working relationship and say in the club. Convenience. You name it. But to pretend they have been trying to find solutions for the last 5 years is just laughable and won’t hold any weight.
- You are making a moral point. Which is irrelevant. They aren’t going to be sued for being naughty boys. They wanted to keep them in the dark because they would scupper the deal. They made it clear many times they don’t want to sell and there was an incomplete shareholders agreement so they went agreed to get the deal done. Again, that’s business.
- Shows your confidence levels then. Whenever you want to then I’m ready. They aren’t winning this one. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 13:16]
|
- They've repeatedly tried to form a relationship throughout this and theres been plenty of instances where this hasn't been reciprocated. Those are just lazy assumptions you are making. Ignoring the fact that they have arranged mediation, have sat down to try and settle, put things at hold at times for the best of the club, taken legal advice, balloted members. Got the case together which must be hell of a laborious task, considering offers, considering a course of action following the removal of offers. There's probably much ive missed without personal and external issues. Come on think balanced - ill admit they probably could have done some of this faster, but all the above add up
- Well yes and no, there are potential illegal acts involved which demonstrate the plot that occurred. Why weren't they informed then if there was no risk of the Americans having to shell out another 21mill?
- yes we will. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:24 - Nov 26 with 423 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:13 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yes they were, they said no and then went on to state privately and publicly that selling their shareholding does not interest them and goes against their core aims and it was their aim to increase and not decrease their shares.
So the next sale that came along weeks later they sold without them involved.
Key error from the Trust and a ridiculous position to have taken. |
- They weren't given the opportunity at the same or at the same terms. So they couldn't say no.
- a very different sale.
- ridiculous to stick to your own doctrine? How is that ridiculous? There's a chance they will deviate from it depending on the circumstances as evidenced by this case. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:27 - Nov 26 with 420 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:21 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- They've repeatedly tried to form a relationship throughout this and theres been plenty of instances where this hasn't been reciprocated. Those are just lazy assumptions you are making. Ignoring the fact that they have arranged mediation, have sat down to try and settle, put things at hold at times for the best of the club, taken legal advice, balloted members. Got the case together which must be hell of a laborious task, considering offers, considering a course of action following the removal of offers. There's probably much ive missed without personal and external issues. Come on think balanced - ill admit they probably could have done some of this faster, but all the above add up
- Well yes and no, there are potential illegal acts involved which demonstrate the plot that occurred. Why weren't they informed then if there was no risk of the Americans having to shell out another 21mill?
- yes we will. |
- Not being reciprocated is down to interpretation. They may well feel they have and argue so. There is nothing lazy about it. They were banging on about a breakdown in communication years ago and still did nothing about it. I’m sorry but 5 years, going into the 6th year... it just doesn’t hold any weight at all for any rational thinker.
- They weren’t informed because they would scupper the deal, put the Americans off by stating they would be noisy neighbours unless they give them what they want.
- Not sure what “yes we will” is in response to. Again, the problem with insisting we communicate like this is that there is no indication of what it is you are responding to. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:29 - Nov 26 with 416 views | Chief |
There's a lot of talk here now that the Americans didn't bid for the trust's shares along with the other 68% because of a perception that the trust didn't want to sell.
So why didn't they make a bid then? Safe in the knowledge that the trust would formally reject & they would have covered their own backsides? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:30 - Nov 26 with 415 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:24 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- They weren't given the opportunity at the same or at the same terms. So they couldn't say no.
- a very different sale.
- ridiculous to stick to your own doctrine? How is that ridiculous? There's a chance they will deviate from it depending on the circumstances as evidenced by this case. |
- They weren’t given the opportunity because they said they didn’t want to sell and made it abundantly clear a matter of weeks prior. The Americans are under no obligation to make them an offer for their shares anyway.
- not sure what “a very different sale” is in reference to.
- not sure what this point is in reference to either. Not enough context there to figure it out. If you insist on responding like this then the only thing I can suggest is you respond in full sentences because you are essentially asking me to remember every point I made in my post in perfect order to know what your response is to. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:31 - Nov 26 with 414 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:29 - Nov 26 by Chief |
There's a lot of talk here now that the Americans didn't bid for the trust's shares along with the other 68% because of a perception that the trust didn't want to sell.
So why didn't they make a bid then? Safe in the knowledge that the trust would formally reject & they would have covered their own backsides? |
Because they were under no obligation to. If the Trust miraculously said yes then it means they would be parting with money for 100% of the club when they only needed the 68% or whatever it was for essentially the same outcome.
The incomplete shareholders agreement stated that the sellers would offer their shares to the Trust for first refusal.
The buyers had no obligation to do anything for the Trust.
Considering the Trust had 800k in the bank, even if the shareholders agreement was valid, which I doubt, it’s a futile point as they didn’t even have enough to buy 1% let alone 60%+ [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 13:35]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:36 - Nov 26 with 408 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:27 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- Not being reciprocated is down to interpretation. They may well feel they have and argue so. There is nothing lazy about it. They were banging on about a breakdown in communication years ago and still did nothing about it. I’m sorry but 5 years, going into the 6th year... it just doesn’t hold any weight at all for any rational thinker.
- They weren’t informed because they would scupper the deal, put the Americans off by stating they would be noisy neighbours unless they give them what they want.
- Not sure what “yes we will” is in response to. Again, the problem with insisting we communicate like this is that there is no indication of what it is you are responding to. |
- you can't force someone to engage and communicate though can you? They say they've tried repeatedly. And Winter even said they do work alongside each other.
- Well that's where we differ, i can envisege that taking a lot of time as well ad obvious external factors.
- Why would they have scuppered the deal? Because it would be breaking a legally binding shareholders agreement? Because they thought they wouldn't have the best interests of the club? Yea both maybe. So they were prevented from doing their job as a trust and fellow shareholder - prejudice.
- apologies - yes we will have to see how the court decides. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.