| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18652 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 13:39 - Nov 26 with 628 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:30 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- 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. |
- But weren't given the opportunity when this particular offer was made.
- you mentioned something about some other interest / sale a few weeks prior. Just like the sale which actually happened is very different to the one described in the Wales online article you quoted. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:40 - Nov 26 with 624 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:36 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- 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. |
- No. But if they don’t then you take action, it doesn’t take 5 years to realise someone isn’t talking to you.
- A lot of time and the best part of a decade isn’t really the same thing though in this context, let’s be fair.
- They would have scuppered the deal because they would have done their due diligence and realised that they weren’t the ideal new owners. There is no job as a fellow shareholder other than holding shares. It is not their job to do due diligence on other people’s share sales. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:42 - Nov 26 with 621 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:39 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- But weren't given the opportunity when this particular offer was made.
- you mentioned something about some other interest / sale a few weeks prior. Just like the sale which actually happened is very different to the one described in the Wales online article you quoted. |
- They weren’t entitled to be given an opportunity. A buyer can make and offer for anyone’s shares, he doesn’t have to buy everyone’s. The Trust made it clear they didn’t want to sell, the owners didn’t want them scuppering it anyway so they did it without them.
- Doesn’t matter. The trust didn’t say they didn’t want to sell to these people, they said they didn’t want to sell - period. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:44 - Nov 26 with 618 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:31 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
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]
|
- And now you're getting down to the real root causes of why the trust were excluded. At last.
- and the sellers didn't do that.
- well that'll be decided in court. If they were aware of the agreement maybe they should have by law adhered to it.
- do kaplan and levein have the personal wealth to have bought 68% of the shares themselves? No but they did. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:47 - Nov 26 with 613 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:40 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- No. But if they don’t then you take action, it doesn’t take 5 years to realise someone isn’t talking to you.
- A lot of time and the best part of a decade isn’t really the same thing though in this context, let’s be fair.
- They would have scuppered the deal because they would have done their due diligence and realised that they weren’t the ideal new owners. There is no job as a fellow shareholder other than holding shares. It is not their job to do due diligence on other people’s share sales. |
- As good current shareholder and boardmember they've continued trying though.
- i am being fair. The stuff i described takes months at a time for each thing.
- now we're getting to the root cause aren't we. Greed. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:47 - Nov 26 with 612 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:44 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- And now you're getting down to the real root causes of why the trust were excluded. At last.
- and the sellers didn't do that.
- well that'll be decided in court. If they were aware of the agreement maybe they should have by law adhered to it.
- do kaplan and levein have the personal wealth to have bought 68% of the shares themselves? No but they did. |
- Eh? I have said that from the very start. They would scupper it. They didn’t want to sell anyway. They were under no obligation to be included. That simple.
- Because the shareholders agreement isn’t valid and the Trust couldn’t afford any of the shares.
- The shareholders agreement valid or not had nothing to do with the buyers, it was to do with the sellers.
- No they didn’t, a consortium did. 68 people want it? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:49 - Nov 26 with 610 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:47 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- As good current shareholder and boardmember they've continued trying though.
- i am being fair. The stuff i described takes months at a time for each thing.
- now we're getting to the root cause aren't we. Greed. |
- I think that’s an incredibly large stretch and one I don’t think many people will buy.
- 6 years nearly mate. 6 years.
- We got to the root cause of greed pages ago. Greed isn’t a crime, it’s human nature. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:51 - Nov 26 with 607 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:42 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- They weren’t entitled to be given an opportunity. A buyer can make and offer for anyone’s shares, he doesn’t have to buy everyone’s. The Trust made it clear they didn’t want to sell, the owners didn’t want them scuppering it anyway so they did it without them.
- Doesn’t matter. The trust didn’t say they didn’t want to sell to these people, they said they didn’t want to sell - period. |
- but there was no formal offer or rejection. Just assumptions. Courts prefer concrete evidence. Not hearsay.
- Well we'll see what the court decide. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:53 - Nov 26 with 604 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:51 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- but there was no formal offer or rejection. Just assumptions. Courts prefer concrete evidence. Not hearsay.
- Well we'll see what the court decide. |
- they weren’t obligated to make them an offer.
- of course they will. But it’s pretty obvious what they will decide. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:54 - Nov 26 with 604 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:49 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- I think that’s an incredibly large stretch and one I don’t think many people will buy.
- 6 years nearly mate. 6 years.
- We got to the root cause of greed pages ago. Greed isn’t a crime, it’s human nature. |
Exactly and again the real reasons are evidenced;greed,jealousy and envy when really our reason for anger should be gross incompetence on the likes on Dineen charged with developing the club and marketing it and making a pigs ear of it all.
It is an unfair world |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:55 - Nov 26 with 604 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:47 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- Eh? I have said that from the very start. They would scupper it. They didn’t want to sell anyway. They were under no obligation to be included. That simple.
- Because the shareholders agreement isn’t valid and the Trust couldn’t afford any of the shares.
- The shareholders agreement valid or not had nothing to do with the buyers, it was to do with the sellers.
- No they didn’t, a consortium did. 68 people want it? |
- Ok at least you admit that.
- If it's not valid why was Huw and his lawyer so worried sbout it?
- So thats another assumption they made then? How do they know the trust couldn't have afforded it?
- I'll take your word on that. They were both complicit in this I'd say. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:59 - Nov 26 with 599 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:55 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- Ok at least you admit that.
- If it's not valid why was Huw and his lawyer so worried sbout it?
- So thats another assumption they made then? How do they know the trust couldn't have afforded it?
- I'll take your word on that. They were both complicit in this I'd say. |
- There is nothing to admit, I made the point myself several times from the very start.
- No idea. He signed it. Takes away a slim angle from the Trust. You would have to ask him.
- No assumption. All the Trust had was dividends, they know how much dividends they were paid. It’s public knowledge and think the Chairman even stated so on here several times. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 14:03]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:03 - Nov 26 with 592 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:59 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- There is nothing to admit, I made the point myself several times from the very start.
- No idea. He signed it. Takes away a slim angle from the Trust. You would have to ask him.
- No assumption. All the Trust had was dividends, they know how much dividends they were paid. It’s public knowledge and think the Chairman even stated so on here several times. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 14:03]
|
- Fair enough. Exposes some very good motives for the deceitful actions.
- Yea he signed it and therefore should have adhered to it.
- Yea but this is no certainty. Its based on an assumption. Not on evidence or agreement. There are ways of raising capital. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:06 - Nov 26 with 589 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:03 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- Fair enough. Exposes some very good motives for the deceitful actions.
- Yea he signed it and therefore should have adhered to it.
- Yea but this is no certainty. Its based on an assumption. Not on evidence or agreement. There are ways of raising capital. |
- Indeed but deceit is often a part of business unfortunately.
- Whether he signed it is irrelevant as the others didn’t, he can’t be the only one to adhere to it because the whole document is based on them all agreeing. They didn’t.
- It is not a realistic expectation. If there were ways of easily raising money then they would have more than 800k in the bank with a court case to peruse. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:13 - Nov 26 with 580 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:06 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- Indeed but deceit is often a part of business unfortunately.
- Whether he signed it is irrelevant as the others didn’t, he can’t be the only one to adhere to it because the whole document is based on them all agreeing. They didn’t.
- It is not a realistic expectation. If there were ways of easily raising money then they would have more than 800k in the bank with a court case to peruse. |
- and is a driver for illegal and prejudicial actions that people take.
- Why was he so concerned about it then? Not sure why you're downplaying it when Jenkins obviously recognises its significance.
- Again, that's an assumption. They should have formally found out. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:18 - Nov 26 with 578 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:13 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- and is a driver for illegal and prejudicial actions that people take.
- Why was he so concerned about it then? Not sure why you're downplaying it when Jenkins obviously recognises its significance.
- Again, that's an assumption. They should have formally found out. |
- It can be, yes. Although in this case we have an incomplete agreement, clear statements from the Trust and nearly 6 years of nothing. So it’s hard to see the connection.
- I just answered that question. He signed it. It would take away the slim angle the Trust has. You would have to ask him.
- It’s a fair assumption. You can’t buy a part of the shares it would need to be in full. But again, that is only to serve a valid shareholders agreement. Which it wasn’t as it wasn’t signed and agreed by all and of which none were working on the basis of come 2015 where the Trust made no mention of it when Noell came calling for what would be a majority stake. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 14:20]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:25 - Nov 26 with 572 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:18 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
- It can be, yes. Although in this case we have an incomplete agreement, clear statements from the Trust and nearly 6 years of nothing. So it’s hard to see the connection.
- I just answered that question. He signed it. It would take away the slim angle the Trust has. You would have to ask him.
- It’s a fair assumption. You can’t buy a part of the shares it would need to be in full. But again, that is only to serve a valid shareholders agreement. Which it wasn’t as it wasn’t signed and agreed by all and of which none were working on the basis of come 2015 where the Trust made no mention of it when Noell came calling for what would be a majority stake. [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 14:20]
|
So you are basing this on assumptions and not evidence. We have evidence that no bid was made. There would be evidence in writing if a bid was made (and it would have had to have been at same time and at same terms) and was rejected. I dispute the motives of those actions (them thinking the trust didn't want to sell) but even if that's why they didn't bother bidding, they should have made sure and got it documented. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:29 - Nov 26 with 570 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:25 - Nov 26 by Chief |
So you are basing this on assumptions and not evidence. We have evidence that no bid was made. There would be evidence in writing if a bid was made (and it would have had to have been at same time and at same terms) and was rejected. I dispute the motives of those actions (them thinking the trust didn't want to sell) but even if that's why they didn't bother bidding, they should have made sure and got it documented. |
No bid needs to be made. That isn’t an assumption, it doesn’t state anywhere in any document that anyone buying shares has to buy everybody's. Be that valid or invalid agreement. It’s up to the buyer.
The agreement stated that the sellers had to offer the Trust the chance to but them first. But the agreement wasn’t signed by everyone so therefore not complete and even the weak argument of compliance by action doesn’t hold any water as nobody was acting on that in 2015 when Noell came in. Again that isn’t assumption.
No idea why you keep thinking that the case is regarding the Americans not bidding for the Trusts shares. They aren’t being taken to court for a reason. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:38 - Nov 26 with 558 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:29 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
No bid needs to be made. That isn’t an assumption, it doesn’t state anywhere in any document that anyone buying shares has to buy everybody's. Be that valid or invalid agreement. It’s up to the buyer.
The agreement stated that the sellers had to offer the Trust the chance to but them first. But the agreement wasn’t signed by everyone so therefore not complete and even the weak argument of compliance by action doesn’t hold any water as nobody was acting on that in 2015 when Noell came in. Again that isn’t assumption.
No idea why you keep thinking that the case is regarding the Americans not bidding for the Trusts shares. They aren’t being taken to court for a reason. |
- The Noell sale didn't go through, so there was nothing to act on.
- But it is my understanding that proceedings are being taken against the sellers and buyers. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:45 - Nov 26 with 533 views | NotLoyal |
Bloody hell folks, you've surely had enough now 😂 |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:16 - Nov 26 with 523 views | Chief |
I want a cut of Keith's website hit money | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:56 - Nov 26 with 510 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:29 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
No bid needs to be made. That isn’t an assumption, it doesn’t state anywhere in any document that anyone buying shares has to buy everybody's. Be that valid or invalid agreement. It’s up to the buyer.
The agreement stated that the sellers had to offer the Trust the chance to but them first. But the agreement wasn’t signed by everyone so therefore not complete and even the weak argument of compliance by action doesn’t hold any water as nobody was acting on that in 2015 when Noell came in. Again that isn’t assumption.
No idea why you keep thinking that the case is regarding the Americans not bidding for the Trusts shares. They aren’t being taken to court for a reason. |
DRAG on and TAG on clauses prevent some sellers selling and others being left and the church as I understand it. These were clearly not in force for the 2016 sale but may have been an issue in the 2017 talks.
The issue for the Trust is quite interesting. If the Americans and others sell up the Trust could be left behind holding shares in a minority holding. Say for example the US owners sell the club for £200m (158m for them) in the PL the Trust would miss out on £42m. To avoid this scenario they could agree a TAG on clause meaning they cannot be left out legally. Clearly beneficial for them.
Of course I would expect that the TAG on cluase is associated with a DRAG on clause as well. If a middle eastern consortium comes in and says they want Swansea city for £60m this would breakdown as £48m for the others and £12m for the Trust. The Trust might not be happy with this. With a DRAG on clause they would have no choice legally. Drag and Tag clauses probably come together. The Trust's concern would be the US people bailing out at a loss. Not o good for the Trust perhaps. Presumably there could be minimum agreed valuations that could be agreed in advance.
The US people would want these clauses as it would be an easier sell for them to sell 100% of the club not 79% and would avoid minority shareholders holding out for better terms. (I have argued you need good relations). A new broom is required and a fresh start to re engage in a spirit of cooperation. There are no Welsh losers at Swansea cty in this centuary at least. (exceptng those caught in the CVA of course.) [Post edited 26 Nov 2020 17:04]
|  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:44 - Nov 26 with 480 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:16 - Nov 26 by Chief |
I want a cut of Keith's website hit money |
Best of luck with that I'm informed it's around £2.90 a, day 😂 | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:53 - Nov 26 with 432 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:38 - Nov 26 by Chief |
- The Noell sale didn't go through, so there was nothing to act on.
- But it is my understanding that proceedings are being taken against the sellers and buyers. |
Doesn’t matter if the Noell sale went through. They should have adapted from that second on.
They didn’t. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:10 - Nov 26 with 420 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:53 - Nov 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Doesn’t matter if the Noell sale went through. They should have adapted from that second on.
They didn’t. |
Again the victim getting most of the criticism. Its outrageous. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.