| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18650 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 09:52 - Nov 27 with 525 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:41 - Nov 27 by swancity |
We all recognise that the Trust made mistakes but two wrongs do not equate to a right, either legally or morally
I drop my wallet containing £100, you walk right behind me and run off with it is still a theft, still an illegal and planned action to deceive and exploit and that’s how it’ll be viewed in simple terms to use an analogy
The QC advice is that the Trust have a good strong case. I’ll leave it there... |
Nobody is making a case that the situation is “right”.
But it is what it is now. The sellouts were greedy and the Trust was incompetent. That’s what happens.
The QC said the Trust HAD a good case not have a good case. Big difference. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:55 - Nov 27 with 522 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:51 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
That’s my point. Once it became clear that their days as a large shareholder was numbers their aims should have aligned, they were too rigid and failed to adapt.
If they stated after Noell that any sale after that then they want in, their shares would have been snapped up first.
I don’t know how many more times I can repeat the same thing. |
But that's not feasible is it?
Because the sellouts aims were to sell at all costs (Huw even probably broke the law to facilitate this) which is obviously going to be a fundamentally different stance from a supporters trust! Even if the trust had said they'd be open to sell. Probability is the sellouts would still have excluded them. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 9:56]
|  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:59 - Nov 27 with 515 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:55 - Nov 27 by Chief |
But that's not feasible is it?
Because the sellouts aims were to sell at all costs (Huw even probably broke the law to facilitate this) which is obviously going to be a fundamentally different stance from a supporters trust! Even if the trust had said they'd be open to sell. Probability is the sellouts would still have excluded them. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 9:56]
|
Of course it is. You are ignoring the point I am making.
IF the Trust changed their views after the Noell deal and the landscape changed to a point where every man and his dog knew the shareholders were selling... then their options were to also be on board with a sale or risk becoming a minority shareholder with no power and stick to their no sale guns.
They did the latter both publicly and privately, in no uncertain terms.
Had the Trust also adopted the sale at all costs attitude then their shares would be snapped up first simply due to the fact that a Supporters Trust being a board member is inconvenient for those that wish to make decisions not always in the clubs best interests. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:01 - Nov 27 with 506 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:59 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
Of course it is. You are ignoring the point I am making.
IF the Trust changed their views after the Noell deal and the landscape changed to a point where every man and his dog knew the shareholders were selling... then their options were to also be on board with a sale or risk becoming a minority shareholder with no power and stick to their no sale guns.
They did the latter both publicly and privately, in no uncertain terms.
Had the Trust also adopted the sale at all costs attitude then their shares would be snapped up first simply due to the fact that a Supporters Trust being a board member is inconvenient for those that wish to make decisions not always in the clubs best interests. |
But its not feasible or realistic for a supporters trust to adopt that attitude! | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:06 - Nov 27 with 498 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:01 - Nov 27 by Chief |
But its not feasible or realistic for a supporters trust to adopt that attitude! |
Yes it is.
If they did they would have £16m in the bank. Instead the best they can hope for is about £6m.
That’s what I mean about foresight and acumen. They lacked both. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:10 - Nov 27 with 490 views | onehunglow |
6m. SIX million.? That is hardly likely to change much .
It is peanuts and evidence as to just how far we have fallen . |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:13 - Nov 27 with 489 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:06 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yes it is.
If they did they would have £16m in the bank. Instead the best they can hope for is about £6m.
That’s what I mean about foresight and acumen. They lacked both. |
No its not. As a supporters trust they should consider what sale would be best in the interests of the club. Not sell to anyone purely to make money in a similar vein as the sellouts. That's why it would have been impossible to be aligned with the sellouts even if they had made it known they were open to sell. The two blocks had opposed aims. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:14 - Nov 27 with 488 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:10 - Nov 27 by onehunglow |
6m. SIX million.? That is hardly likely to change much .
It is peanuts and evidence as to just how far we have fallen . |
Its a random number mind. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:21 - Nov 27 with 484 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:13 - Nov 27 by Chief |
No its not. As a supporters trust they should consider what sale would be best in the interests of the club. Not sell to anyone purely to make money in a similar vein as the sellouts. That's why it would have been impossible to be aligned with the sellouts even if they had made it known they were open to sell. The two blocks had opposed aims. |
They don’t have a choice. Once the others wanted to sell then their sole remit should have been getting as much money for their soon to be worthless shares as possible.
The others were not going to sit on their nest eggs forever, which means they should have planned way in advance what happens when that time comes.
That time came and they didn’t change one iota. They clearly hadn’t thought about the potential scenarios or how damaging it would be for their organisation if they were left as the only ones holding their shares.
There is absolutely nothing impossible about aligning themselves with the shareholders that wanted to sell at all. In fact it was the easiest option, the most obvious one and the one best for the club and the organisation.
c.£16m in the bank that could be part of a consortium to take over the club when it is still at a fairly healthy standard.
No brainer. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:23 - Nov 27 with 482 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:14 - Nov 27 by Chief |
Its a random number mind. |
£21m minus capital gains tax is £15m, a 40% cut (upper range of average for no win no fee) of the £21m award would then mean they have to give another £8.5m away.
Leaving them with £6.7m ish.
That’s if they win, which is doubtful. And even if they do, if anyone thinks the sellouts still have £21m to pay them then they are off their rockers. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 10:25]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:24 - Nov 27 with 481 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:21 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
They don’t have a choice. Once the others wanted to sell then their sole remit should have been getting as much money for their soon to be worthless shares as possible.
The others were not going to sit on their nest eggs forever, which means they should have planned way in advance what happens when that time comes.
That time came and they didn’t change one iota. They clearly hadn’t thought about the potential scenarios or how damaging it would be for their organisation if they were left as the only ones holding their shares.
There is absolutely nothing impossible about aligning themselves with the shareholders that wanted to sell at all. In fact it was the easiest option, the most obvious one and the one best for the club and the organisation.
c.£16m in the bank that could be part of a consortium to take over the club when it is still at a fairly healthy standard.
No brainer. |
Well we'll have to disagree on that.
Can you imagine the outcry if the trust had sold to some random owners without thinking of the consequences for the club purely to gain as much money as possible?
Crazy to suggest that the supporters trust should have acted like that. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:27 - Nov 27 with 477 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:24 - Nov 27 by Chief |
Well we'll have to disagree on that.
Can you imagine the outcry if the trust had sold to some random owners without thinking of the consequences for the club purely to gain as much money as possible?
Crazy to suggest that the supporters trust should have acted like that. |
What do you mean without thinking of the consequences?
It is exactly thinking of the consequences why they should have sold.
Not thinking of the consequences is exactly why they find themselves where they do. Had they thought of the consequences of not selling then they would be sitting pretty with a massive chance of a fan owned club again in the future.
With the award even in best case scenario now the club would need to be in League 2 probably before they could use it to gain any meaningful stake again. How has that protected us?
It hasn’t. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:30 - Nov 27 with 474 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:27 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
What do you mean without thinking of the consequences?
It is exactly thinking of the consequences why they should have sold.
Not thinking of the consequences is exactly why they find themselves where they do. Had they thought of the consequences of not selling then they would be sitting pretty with a massive chance of a fan owned club again in the future.
With the award even in best case scenario now the club would need to be in League 2 probably before they could use it to gain any meaningful stake again. How has that protected us?
It hasn’t. |
The consequences of any random chancers owning the club and how they'd treat it. That's the stance you are suggesting they should have taken. Which is preposterous. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 10:31]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:34 - Nov 27 with 470 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:30 - Nov 27 by Chief |
The consequences of any random chancers owning the club and how they'd treat it. That's the stance you are suggesting they should have taken. Which is preposterous. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 10:31]
|
You don’t seem to have any grasp of this situation, I mean that in the nicest possible way. You aren’t thinking about what you are saying.
The choice would be cash in with said random chancers and have £16m war chest for when the time comes.
Or
Others sell to random chancers and you lose value in your shares and get stuck with almost nothing to protect the clubs future.
It’s called making a deal with the devil when he has you over a barrel. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:37 - Nov 27 with 467 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Put it this way.
If it’s such a crazy idea in your mind to sell their shares to new owners (for a fortune) that may not have the clubs best interest at heart.
Then why are they taking court action? Because the remedy is the same, just for a pittance.
And more interestingly... why are you supporting such a remedy? [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 10:40]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:42 - Nov 27 with 460 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:37 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
Put it this way.
If it’s such a crazy idea in your mind to sell their shares to new owners (for a fortune) that may not have the clubs best interest at heart.
Then why are they taking court action? Because the remedy is the same, just for a pittance.
And more interestingly... why are you supporting such a remedy? [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 10:40]
|
You're now mixing hypotheticals with reality there so it's bit difficult to answer. I've stated we could do a lot worse than the current owners. And the trust gets a lump sum for future use. Its a decent situation I'd say. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:48 - Nov 27 with 453 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:42 - Nov 27 by Chief |
You're now mixing hypotheticals with reality there so it's bit difficult to answer. I've stated we could do a lot worse than the current owners. And the trust gets a lump sum for future use. Its a decent situation I'd say. |
There we go then, they are decent owners.
So the Trust should have said they are completely open and willing to sell their shares when it became clear their days were numbered in the share structure they had. If they did that then they would have had £16m.
There is nothing hypothetical about that. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 10:49]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:52 - Nov 27 with 446 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:48 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
There we go then, they are decent owners.
So the Trust should have said they are completely open and willing to sell their shares when it became clear their days were numbered in the share structure they had. If they did that then they would have had £16m.
There is nothing hypothetical about that. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 10:49]
|
But we only know that they aren't too bad because of the time that has elapsed since the sale, assessing them at the point of sale would have been difficult, they could have been any bunch of chancers for all anyone knew at that point.
Anyway - the trust didn't get the chance to vet them. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:55 - Nov 27 with 442 views | Chief |
You could argue that if the trust had been involved at the start (if they'd taken your route of inviting offers) they would have fully opposed it anyway based on the owner's record at the other football club they own which is pretty abysmal. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:02 - Nov 27 with 436 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:52 - Nov 27 by Chief |
But we only know that they aren't too bad because of the time that has elapsed since the sale, assessing them at the point of sale would have been difficult, they could have been any bunch of chancers for all anyone knew at that point.
Anyway - the trust didn't get the chance to vet them. |
But you aren’t grasping that it is irrelevant.
Let’s say they were the worst owners on earth.
Instead of having £16m and a chance to lead a consortium in the future. They would now be taking the worst owners on earth to court to get £6.5m.
The sellouts were selling. That much should have been clear. Which means the Trust was about to become a minority shareholder with no real voting rights.
Whether the new owners are great or awful doesn’t impact that. Hence they should have adapted and acted (as they were advised to by many at the time). | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:04 - Nov 27 with 432 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:02 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
But you aren’t grasping that it is irrelevant.
Let’s say they were the worst owners on earth.
Instead of having £16m and a chance to lead a consortium in the future. They would now be taking the worst owners on earth to court to get £6.5m.
The sellouts were selling. That much should have been clear. Which means the Trust was about to become a minority shareholder with no real voting rights.
Whether the new owners are great or awful doesn’t impact that. Hence they should have adapted and acted (as they were advised to by many at the time). |
Its completely irrelevant.
There's no point in going on and on in circles. No supporters trust should sell their shares at all costs and to anyone. That's insane. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:11 - Nov 27 with 426 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:04 - Nov 27 by Chief |
Its completely irrelevant.
There's no point in going on and on in circles. No supporters trust should sell their shares at all costs and to anyone. That's insane. |
It’s not insane, demonstrably.
If it is better for the club and the organisation to sell the shares, they sell the shares.
It’s like saying no self respecting man would throw a bucket of urine over his wife, and telling us how ludicrous it is... yet you are failing to grasp that she was on fire.
It makes every bit of sense in that scenario and is best for all concerned. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:14 - Nov 27 with 424 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:11 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s not insane, demonstrably.
If it is better for the club and the organisation to sell the shares, they sell the shares.
It’s like saying no self respecting man would throw a bucket of urine over his wife, and telling us how ludicrous it is... yet you are failing to grasp that she was on fire.
It makes every bit of sense in that scenario and is best for all concerned. |
But you're advocating selling shares when that isn't necessarily better for the club. Which is where i fundamentally disagree with you. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:16 - Nov 27 with 420 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:14 - Nov 27 by Chief |
But you're advocating selling shares when that isn't necessarily better for the club. Which is where i fundamentally disagree with you. |
But it was better for the club.
There is no scenario where not selling would have been better for the club regardless of realistic owner.
I can’t imagine there are too many oil tycoons waiting in the wings. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:19 - Nov 27 with 415 views | Chief |
Anyway its been an interesting discussion Mr Parnassus. We agree the sellouts were deceitful and possibly acted illegally. But you say:
1) The trust should have decided that they would sell their shares basically to whoever the sellouts wanted to.
2) That this would have guaranteed that the trust would be included in any bid or sale.
I disagree on both counts so may as well leave it there. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.