| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18642 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 11:34 - Nov 27 with 746 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:19 - Nov 27 by 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. |
It isn’t really an opinion. If they wanted to sell they would have had an offer. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:34 - Nov 27 with 720 views | swancity |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:34 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
It isn’t really an opinion. If they wanted to sell they would have had an offer. |
Can’t see that there’s an adequate defence really.
Jenkins should have involved the Trust from the outset. Regardless of what happened previously. I’m sure that ( privately ) he will know that he’s dropped a huge bollock on reflection and it’s something that they can’t recover from, despite millions of pounds sitting in bank accounts
Life is full of deceitful people who put greed and money whether legal or illegal before friendships and relationships but they then have to live with it and face the music at times. That’s what’ll happen here. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:51 - Nov 27 with 712 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:34 - Nov 27 by swancity |
Can’t see that there’s an adequate defence really.
Jenkins should have involved the Trust from the outset. Regardless of what happened previously. I’m sure that ( privately ) he will know that he’s dropped a huge bollock on reflection and it’s something that they can’t recover from, despite millions of pounds sitting in bank accounts
Life is full of deceitful people who put greed and money whether legal or illegal before friendships and relationships but they then have to live with it and face the music at times. That’s what’ll happen here. |
It’s not a defence. It has nothing to do with the old guard. This was the Trusts whole purpose and they failed. It was sheer stupidity.
“Should” have in terms of morally, yes agreed. “Should” have in terms of practicality? I don’t think I do agree.
I put myself as a shareholder of Darlington, a club I don’t really have an affinity with (so the likes of Katzen). If Darlington got the the PL and my £50k was worth £7m and I thought a group of people were going to ruin my chance to sell my shares while the club was about to start a downward trend - I wouldn’t tell them either.
The Trust had to make it abundantly clear to the others that they were fine with any reasonable sale offer and that they wanted to also explore selling. It’s such an easy and obvious step to make but they bizarrely doubled down and said they weren’t selling.
So that’s why we are here. The other lot were always going to cash in and it’s naive to think otherwise. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:07 - Nov 27 with 705 views | swancity |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:51 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s not a defence. It has nothing to do with the old guard. This was the Trusts whole purpose and they failed. It was sheer stupidity.
“Should” have in terms of morally, yes agreed. “Should” have in terms of practicality? I don’t think I do agree.
I put myself as a shareholder of Darlington, a club I don’t really have an affinity with (so the likes of Katzen). If Darlington got the the PL and my £50k was worth £7m and I thought a group of people were going to ruin my chance to sell my shares while the club was about to start a downward trend - I wouldn’t tell them either.
The Trust had to make it abundantly clear to the others that they were fine with any reasonable sale offer and that they wanted to also explore selling. It’s such an easy and obvious step to make but they bizarrely doubled down and said they weren’t selling.
So that’s why we are here. The other lot were always going to cash in and it’s naive to think otherwise. |
Should have .....legally as well as morally
The rest of your comments confirm the greed despite having the million pound carrot dangled in front of them and that’s the point, that’s where men stopped becoming men. They had a choice but greed got there first as it so often does ....if was a calculated plan to deceive regardless of mitigating factors 👠| |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:16 - Nov 27 with 703 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:34 - Nov 27 by swancity |
Can’t see that there’s an adequate defence really.
Jenkins should have involved the Trust from the outset. Regardless of what happened previously. I’m sure that ( privately ) he will know that he’s dropped a huge bollock on reflection and it’s something that they can’t recover from, despite millions of pounds sitting in bank accounts
Life is full of deceitful people who put greed and money whether legal or illegal before friendships and relationships but they then have to live with it and face the music at times. That’s what’ll happen here. |
Defence?
They can suddenly appear ,believe me. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:49 - Nov 27 with 668 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:34 - Nov 27 by swancity |
Can’t see that there’s an adequate defence really.
Jenkins should have involved the Trust from the outset. Regardless of what happened previously. I’m sure that ( privately ) he will know that he’s dropped a huge bollock on reflection and it’s something that they can’t recover from, despite millions of pounds sitting in bank accounts
Life is full of deceitful people who put greed and money whether legal or illegal before friendships and relationships but they then have to live with it and face the music at times. That’s what’ll happen here. |
When you are working with your frends and your friends say they will never sell their shares, what do you do when you get an offer for yours and you want to sell?
There is nothing greedy about selling half your shares in a company your and your partners actually built up. Is it decietful to build your own house and sell it for a profit.? Of course not. In my view it is pure hypocrasy to suggest it. If the Trust regard selling shares immoral why did they buy any in the first place with two partners that were venture capitalists?
The sellers gave Swansea city a x100 mark up on thier investment. Even though they said they would never sell then said the prefered not to sell, the sellers put buyers with cash on a table in front of them just to make sure. The talks somehow broke down in acrimony.
The Trust s first strategy to get to 25% was not achievable. The Trust second stategy of a forced sale was even more illogical as it ensured bad relations and the paying of huge fees to third parties. Removing money from the owners by the fans will see the owners take money back off the fans at any opportunity. People with uunrealisritc strategies and a litigous outlook will never find partners in risky assets like shares in Swansea City. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:55 - Nov 27 with 644 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:49 - Nov 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
When you are working with your frends and your friends say they will never sell their shares, what do you do when you get an offer for yours and you want to sell?
There is nothing greedy about selling half your shares in a company your and your partners actually built up. Is it decietful to build your own house and sell it for a profit.? Of course not. In my view it is pure hypocrasy to suggest it. If the Trust regard selling shares immoral why did they buy any in the first place with two partners that were venture capitalists?
The sellers gave Swansea city a x100 mark up on thier investment. Even though they said they would never sell then said the prefered not to sell, the sellers put buyers with cash on a table in front of them just to make sure. The talks somehow broke down in acrimony.
The Trust s first strategy to get to 25% was not achievable. The Trust second stategy of a forced sale was even more illogical as it ensured bad relations and the paying of huge fees to third parties. Removing money from the owners by the fans will see the owners take money back off the fans at any opportunity. People with uunrealisritc strategies and a litigous outlook will never find partners in risky assets like shares in Swansea City. |
- Yes! Out of courtesy at the very least. To be thorough and to tie up loose ends secondly. And thirdly to make sure you're acting legally because you and your friends have a shareholders agreement.
- Would it be deceitful to sell part of the house you own along with other people and decide not inform them when a bid comes in? Yes. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:31 - Nov 27 with 632 views | londonlisa2001 |
Loathe though I am to enter in to any part of this discussion, a couple of points:
Firstly. Could we knock the whole ‘the Trust said they wouldn’t sell’ on the head. From the Trust website:
“ 18 March 2016, the Trust wrote formally to Huw Jenkins and all other selling shareholders requesting that the Trust was included in all discussions and documentation relating to the proposed sale. That letter also reminded the selling shareholders that they were all bound by the original Shareholders’ Agreement, which stated that first refusal on any shares to be sold should go to the existing shareholders. Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members. Unfortunately we received no reply to that letter.”
Secondly, on this thread alone there have been several comments from the poster calling themselves ‘Resloven’ that appear to have somewhat of a common theme:
“ . I hope the people that pushed for this case are the one who will stand up in court. I for one would not like to be in their shoes.”
“ Who of them is brave enough and strong enough to testify in court on oath?”
“ Trust volunteers presumably could be summoned against their will as witnesses. It is not voluntry issue. The case could be quite traumatic for individuals who have only ever wanted to stay in the background and do a steady job.”
“ Telling lies could mean time inside. Rather them than me.”
It’s not the first time you’ve stated similar. It’s one thing to repeatedly post genuinely hilarious takes on the situation from your position of either ignorance or just stupidity (both I suspect) but it’d be wise to stop posting what amounts to threats.
Finally. I’m not sure people realise how much their inability to spell certain words (I don’t mean typos, I mean continued identical misspelling) across different names and platforms gives them away. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:23 - Nov 27 with 582 views | Treforys_Jack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:31 - Nov 27 by londonlisa2001 |
Loathe though I am to enter in to any part of this discussion, a couple of points:
Firstly. Could we knock the whole ‘the Trust said they wouldn’t sell’ on the head. From the Trust website:
“ 18 March 2016, the Trust wrote formally to Huw Jenkins and all other selling shareholders requesting that the Trust was included in all discussions and documentation relating to the proposed sale. That letter also reminded the selling shareholders that they were all bound by the original Shareholders’ Agreement, which stated that first refusal on any shares to be sold should go to the existing shareholders. Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members. Unfortunately we received no reply to that letter.”
Secondly, on this thread alone there have been several comments from the poster calling themselves ‘Resloven’ that appear to have somewhat of a common theme:
“ . I hope the people that pushed for this case are the one who will stand up in court. I for one would not like to be in their shoes.”
“ Who of them is brave enough and strong enough to testify in court on oath?”
“ Trust volunteers presumably could be summoned against their will as witnesses. It is not voluntry issue. The case could be quite traumatic for individuals who have only ever wanted to stay in the background and do a steady job.”
“ Telling lies could mean time inside. Rather them than me.”
It’s not the first time you’ve stated similar. It’s one thing to repeatedly post genuinely hilarious takes on the situation from your position of either ignorance or just stupidity (both I suspect) but it’d be wise to stop posting what amounts to threats.
Finally. I’m not sure people realise how much their inability to spell certain words (I don’t mean typos, I mean continued identical misspelling) across different names and platforms gives them away. |
You're last paragraph is goldust. The rest of the post is pretty good as well, to be fair. People can't change their posting style no matter how hard they try. |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:53 - Nov 27 with 571 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:23 - Nov 27 by Treforys_Jack |
You're last paragraph is goldust. The rest of the post is pretty good as well, to be fair. People can't change their posting style no matter how hard they try. |
My style is my style and I am not changing it for anyone. I do have troubles persistently with words like 'involve' which I persistently write as 'invlove' for some reason. Hence the 'Resloven fiasco'.
I do not have a threatening bone in my body but feel obliged to warn people that involuntary calls to the court can be highly stressful for untrained individuals. I consider it unfair on them. This is a reasonable point not highlighted by anyone else. I am admitedly very keen that the club's owners settle their differences out of court. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:10 - Nov 27 with 559 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:53 - Nov 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
My style is my style and I am not changing it for anyone. I do have troubles persistently with words like 'involve' which I persistently write as 'invlove' for some reason. Hence the 'Resloven fiasco'.
I do not have a threatening bone in my body but feel obliged to warn people that involuntary calls to the court can be highly stressful for untrained individuals. I consider it unfair on them. This is a reasonable point not highlighted by anyone else. I am admitedly very keen that the club's owners settle their differences out of court. |
Sorry, you’re being disingenuous.
Considering something to be unfair on someone and feeling a need to warn them is simply not consistent with posting “ Telling lies could mean time inside”.
You are blatantly threatening and it’s not the first time. So please. Stop with the whole ‘I’m just trying to help’ pretence.
Your posts on the issue are full of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and, forgive me, utter nonsense based on flawed assumptions. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:12 - Nov 27 with 553 views | onehunglow |
Lisa.Lovely Lisa. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:31 - Nov 27 with 524 views | swancity |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:31 - Nov 27 by londonlisa2001 |
Loathe though I am to enter in to any part of this discussion, a couple of points:
Firstly. Could we knock the whole ‘the Trust said they wouldn’t sell’ on the head. From the Trust website:
“ 18 March 2016, the Trust wrote formally to Huw Jenkins and all other selling shareholders requesting that the Trust was included in all discussions and documentation relating to the proposed sale. That letter also reminded the selling shareholders that they were all bound by the original Shareholders’ Agreement, which stated that first refusal on any shares to be sold should go to the existing shareholders. Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members. Unfortunately we received no reply to that letter.”
Secondly, on this thread alone there have been several comments from the poster calling themselves ‘Resloven’ that appear to have somewhat of a common theme:
“ . I hope the people that pushed for this case are the one who will stand up in court. I for one would not like to be in their shoes.”
“ Who of them is brave enough and strong enough to testify in court on oath?”
“ Trust volunteers presumably could be summoned against their will as witnesses. It is not voluntry issue. The case could be quite traumatic for individuals who have only ever wanted to stay in the background and do a steady job.”
“ Telling lies could mean time inside. Rather them than me.”
It’s not the first time you’ve stated similar. It’s one thing to repeatedly post genuinely hilarious takes on the situation from your position of either ignorance or just stupidity (both I suspect) but it’d be wise to stop posting what amounts to threats.
Finally. I’m not sure people realise how much their inability to spell certain words (I don’t mean typos, I mean continued identical misspelling) across different names and platforms gives them away. |
An excellent appraisal. ðŸ‘
Facts and not fiction, guesswork or assumptions and lies. Always helps. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:48 - Nov 27 with 518 views | onehunglow |
We are indeed blessed to see Lisa pop over to tell us what is what and where we are going awry. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:50 - Nov 27 with 516 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:07 - Nov 27 by swancity |
Should have .....legally as well as morally
The rest of your comments confirm the greed despite having the million pound carrot dangled in front of them and that’s the point, that’s where men stopped becoming men. They had a choice but greed got there first as it so often does ....if was a calculated plan to deceive regardless of mitigating factors 👠|
That is yet to be determined.
Without a valid shareholders agreement and now nearly 6 years since the sale, I’m struggling to see a strong case.
Confirming greed isn’t confirming guilt. I’m greedy sometimes. I kept half a a vegan Swiss roll for my other half yesterday, by the time she came back from the shower I had eaten it.
We are all greedy. Even more so when it comes to setting our families up for life. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:55 - Nov 27 with 513 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Firstly. Could we knock the whole ‘the Trust said they wouldn’t sell’ on the head. From the Trust website:
“ 18 March 2016, the Trust wrote formally to Huw Jenkins and all other selling shareholders requesting that the Trust was included in all discussions and documentation relating to the proposed sale. That letter also reminded the selling shareholders that they were all bound by the original Shareholders’ Agreement, which stated that first refusal on any shares to be sold should go to the existing shareholders. Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members. Unfortunately we received no reply to that letter.”
.........
That doesn’t say anything about them wanting to sell. Their position for not selling was clear.
That letter sent to the shareholders simply requested that the others adhere to the shareholders agreement and they be kept in the loop, but they clearly questioned its validity at that point and didn’t want to after they scuppered the last sale.
Nothing there suggests the Trust wanted to play ball or indeed even entertain selling their own stake. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:16 - Nov 27 with 500 views | Garyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:55 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
Firstly. Could we knock the whole ‘the Trust said they wouldn’t sell’ on the head. From the Trust website:
“ 18 March 2016, the Trust wrote formally to Huw Jenkins and all other selling shareholders requesting that the Trust was included in all discussions and documentation relating to the proposed sale. That letter also reminded the selling shareholders that they were all bound by the original Shareholders’ Agreement, which stated that first refusal on any shares to be sold should go to the existing shareholders. Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members. Unfortunately we received no reply to that letter.”
.........
That doesn’t say anything about them wanting to sell. Their position for not selling was clear.
That letter sent to the shareholders simply requested that the others adhere to the shareholders agreement and they be kept in the loop, but they clearly questioned its validity at that point and didn’t want to after they scuppered the last sale.
Nothing there suggests the Trust wanted to play ball or indeed even entertain selling their own stake. |
"Nothing there suggests the Trust wanted to play ball or indeed even entertain selling their own stake."
"Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members."
Is there something in that statement that you fail to grasp as it's quite self explanatory.
. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 21:19]
|  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:21 - Nov 27 with 492 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:16 - Nov 27 by Garyjack |
"Nothing there suggests the Trust wanted to play ball or indeed even entertain selling their own stake."
"Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members."
Is there something in that statement that you fail to grasp as it's quite self explanatory.
. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 21:19]
|
I’m fully aware of that, hence the:-
“That letter sent to the shareholders simply requested that the others adhere to the shareholders agreement and they be kept in the loop, but they clearly questioned its validity at that point and didn’t want to after they scuppered the last sale.”
At no point does that letter change any stance that they made clear in everyone willing to listen, that their shares are not for sale. Considering it and actively wanting to aren’t the same thing.
Show me the sentence within it that states that. Highlight it for me.
Remember, there aren’t oil tycoons lined up to buy Swansea. It’s very likely that anyone buying the club isn’t going to be in the direct interests of their members. The majority of owners buying the club will be in it for profit.
What the Trust failed to realise is that ANY realistic sale was in the benefit of Swansea and its members. Because the proceeds would then have gone into a fund to safeguard the club for a long long time if it got into strife. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 21:31]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:24 - Nov 27 with 489 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Ah it seems you realised that and edited it, so now my post doesn’t make sense as a reply.
For context, It initially said it was self explanatory and the thing I haven’t grasped is that “letter wasn’t sent to members, it was sent to the other shareholders”.
After realising that I did indeed realise that and addressed it, you deleted it and left it as something cryptic looking.
Come on mate, let’s not be debating like that. It’s disingenuous. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 21:25]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:38 - Nov 27 with 470 views | Garyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:21 - Nov 27 by Dr_Parnassus |
I’m fully aware of that, hence the:-
“That letter sent to the shareholders simply requested that the others adhere to the shareholders agreement and they be kept in the loop, but they clearly questioned its validity at that point and didn’t want to after they scuppered the last sale.”
At no point does that letter change any stance that they made clear in everyone willing to listen, that their shares are not for sale. Considering it and actively wanting to aren’t the same thing.
Show me the sentence within it that states that. Highlight it for me.
Remember, there aren’t oil tycoons lined up to buy Swansea. It’s very likely that anyone buying the club isn’t going to be in the direct interests of their members. The majority of owners buying the club will be in it for profit.
What the Trust failed to realise is that ANY realistic sale was in the benefit of Swansea and its members. Because the proceeds would then have gone into a fund to safeguard the club for a long long time if it got into strife. [Post edited 27 Nov 2020 21:31]
|
i just did and you failed to grasp it's meaning.
"Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members."
It makes no difference whether they wanted to sell or not, of course they didn't want to. But asking to be kept in the loop so they could consider whether they would sell is quite enough for me, as i'm sure it would for anyone judging the case. The fact that they received no reply to said letter is extremely damaging to the other shareholders don't you think? | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:46 - Nov 27 with 454 views | Garyjack |
Also my edit had little or no bearing on the point i was making. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:48 - Nov 27 with 424 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:46 - Nov 27 by Garyjack |
Also my edit had little or no bearing on the point i was making. |
Of course it did. You said I missed the point that it was to the shareholders and not the members.
After you realised I did know that, you edited to leave it as something cryptic. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:50 - Nov 27 with 420 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:41 - Nov 27 by Garyjack |
Says the guy who has also edited his post whilst i was replying!  |
Editing wasn't the issue.
It was the changing of your accusation to take out what was clearly inaccurate and then leaving it there as a cryptic generalisation. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:55 - Nov 27 with 412 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:38 - Nov 27 by Garyjack |
i just did and you failed to grasp it's meaning.
"Further, the letter also stated the Trust would consider any offer for its shares if we believed it was in the interests of our members."
It makes no difference whether they wanted to sell or not, of course they didn't want to. But asking to be kept in the loop so they could consider whether they would sell is quite enough for me, as i'm sure it would for anyone judging the case. The fact that they received no reply to said letter is extremely damaging to the other shareholders don't you think? |
Not at all, they are under no obligation to involve them in talks when they did last time and they ruined the deal.
Their message to the shareholders (after being very clear they have no interest in selling their shares) was to be kept in the loop and they would ''consider'' selling it if was of ''benefit'' to the members.
There is not a realistic scenario where any sale would benefit the members. Anyone buying the club will be doing to to profit and may well make personal decisions over club ones.
However, what they failed to grasp was the sale to ANY owner (within reason) would be of benefit to the members as the alternative and the club being sold without them tagging along is disastrous to their organisation.
They should have recognised the climate they were in, where the club was about to be sold by people desperate to sell in what may have been a relatively short window. At no point reading their message to the shareholders, would I as a shareholder believe they wanted to sell and were in the same boat as us. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.