By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
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.
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:06 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1
Please explain why it was the US people who were called to the failed mediation talks not only the sellers.? One of the sellers was reported as being a firm. You know what that means.
You tell us. As i say i assumed (maybe incorrectly in light of this thread) that mediation was brought about with the intention of the US&trust coming to an agreement on the sale of the trust's shares. So i didn't think there need to summon the sellers to that.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:01 - Nov 21 by Catullus
I keep my dealings with lawyers to a very minimum but is there a duty of care in legal advice? If their lawyers gave them bad advice, ie that the case was never winnable, could the trust have recourse? Obviously then that would involve others in the legal profession!
As for saying the shares ar worthless, haven't you, Resloven, been the one criticising them the most for not selling, even though you have admitted they were deliberately excluded from the sale, for saying legal action now makes no sense because if we got promoted the shares would be worth more next season?
Indeed, haven't you been criticised for sounding like a representtative of the previous owners?
The trust have apprently been told they have a good case, that being so they could make a significant financial gain and have money in the bank as well as shares. If it doesn't harm the club itself it would be a very good outcome. The current owners can carry on as they are but if there were any problems in the future the trust would be in a stronger position to help.
The shares have never been worthless. It was an argument made by the proponents of legal action to swing the vote in favour of action. This suggested falsely there was nothing to lose and "no alternative".
The model that fitted in with the doom laden soul of Swansea fans was that they had to bail out as the club was heading to league 2 and possible administation. Another dubious scenario.
The Trust own 21% of the club and the value depends on the performance of the club. A return to the PL will see they value double that of the 2016 price if a buyer is found. If the club performs badly it will half or less.
It is my understanding that these are effectively 'divorce procedings' and given that mediation has failed I think there is probably little chance the Trust will own any shares after this. The judge could assume the relationship has broken down and a clean break is required. I cannot quite correlate that only the sellers are involved as defendants, because it was the US people that were considered the main people for mediation talks.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:25 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1
The shares have never been worthless. It was an argument made by the proponents of legal action to swing the vote in favour of action. This suggested falsely there was nothing to lose and "no alternative".
The model that fitted in with the doom laden soul of Swansea fans was that they had to bail out as the club was heading to league 2 and possible administation. Another dubious scenario.
The Trust own 21% of the club and the value depends on the performance of the club. A return to the PL will see they value double that of the 2016 price if a buyer is found. If the club performs badly it will half or less.
It is my understanding that these are effectively 'divorce procedings' and given that mediation has failed I think there is probably little chance the Trust will own any shares after this. The judge could assume the relationship has broken down and a clean break is required. I cannot quite correlate that only the sellers are involved as defendants, because it was the US people that were considered the main people for mediation talks.
- you're being disingenuous there. I don't think anyone has ever said the shares are worthless in a financial sense. What was being referred to was being a non controlling stake in a club with a larger shareholder that wasnt engaging or cooperating. - That last paragraph makes no sense. What do you think will happen then? The judge will give the trusts shares to the sell outs?
Stuart James from The Athletic did some brilliant analysis about the Swans Trust and the club in 2016.
It can be listened to here:
Let's not forget that Levien admitted at a public forum that he was instructed about not speaking to the Trust. Why he admitted this at a fans forum which was being recorded makes little sense. Jump to 25 min mark onwards. "We were told not to engage with the Trust"
[Post edited 21 Nov 2020 19:56]
1
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:53 - Nov 21 with 1067 views
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:25 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1
The shares have never been worthless. It was an argument made by the proponents of legal action to swing the vote in favour of action. This suggested falsely there was nothing to lose and "no alternative".
The model that fitted in with the doom laden soul of Swansea fans was that they had to bail out as the club was heading to league 2 and possible administation. Another dubious scenario.
The Trust own 21% of the club and the value depends on the performance of the club. A return to the PL will see they value double that of the 2016 price if a buyer is found. If the club performs badly it will half or less.
It is my understanding that these are effectively 'divorce procedings' and given that mediation has failed I think there is probably little chance the Trust will own any shares after this. The judge could assume the relationship has broken down and a clean break is required. I cannot quite correlate that only the sellers are involved as defendants, because it was the US people that were considered the main people for mediation talks.
The action is against the sellers, not the club or any other entity, be that right or wrong, that’s how it is. Nothing to do with shares. Just the behaviour of individuals at the time and running up to that time of the sale. Simple as that. Nothing more. The trust have played a seriously good game in making it that clear. Shares don’t come in to it, nor value of those shares, it’s the action at the time when all shareholders should have been involved, but were excluded. Prior to the sale.
This post has been edited by an administrator
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:53 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes
The action is against the sellers, not the club or any other entity, be that right or wrong, that’s how it is. Nothing to do with shares. Just the behaviour of individuals at the time and running up to that time of the sale. Simple as that. Nothing more. The trust have played a seriously good game in making it that clear. Shares don’t come in to it, nor value of those shares, it’s the action at the time when all shareholders should have been involved, but were excluded. Prior to the sale.
This post has been edited by an administrator
Where has this information come from then Keith?
I'm a member of the trust and while it was clear in my mind the trust was never taking the club to court. I did however think they were taking Kaplan/Levein as individuals to court to force them to buy the trust's shares from their own pockets.
This goes for all my Swans supporting friends that i have discussed the matter with too.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:04 - Nov 21 by Chief
Where has this information come from then Keith?
I'm a member of the trust and while it was clear in my mind the trust was never taking the club to court. I did however think they were taking Kaplan/Levein as individuals to court to force them to buy the trust's shares from their own pockets.
This goes for all my Swans supporting friends that i have discussed the matter with too.
It’s just how I see the the basic information supplied in open source, nothing more. A personal opinion. I just can’t see it being any other way. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But for me, it can’t be any other way, may be the trust should open up on their mindset, that is, if they can at this point.
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:53 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes
The action is against the sellers, not the club or any other entity, be that right or wrong, that’s how it is. Nothing to do with shares. Just the behaviour of individuals at the time and running up to that time of the sale. Simple as that. Nothing more. The trust have played a seriously good game in making it that clear. Shares don’t come in to it, nor value of those shares, it’s the action at the time when all shareholders should have been involved, but were excluded. Prior to the sale.
This post has been edited by an administrator
I’m coming out of retirement to make this one post and I mean no disrespect to people but people including Keith Haynes are talking absolute nonsense. It’s also a disgrace,even though some of you are obviously going to attack me for saying it,freedom of speech blah blah blah that Keith has allowed this Resloven fella to peddle his lies on here for so long. Why so many people that are supposedly Swansea City fans have no idea what has gone on/is going on is bizarre,though I do understand one not understanding. People,individuals and not the football club are facing legal action,those people are all the sellers AND Levien and Kaplan. Just so you all understand NOT THE FOOTBALL CLUB. If the legal action is successful the likes of Dineen,Jenkins,Morgan,van Zweden will be hit in the pocket,the money will not be coming out of the football club and if shares are purchased off the Trust they will be purchased at the price they were when the sale went through not at what they are next year because Burnley and Derby shares are doing well on the FTSE 100.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:51 - Nov 21 by Darran
I’m coming out of retirement to make this one post and I mean no disrespect to people but people including Keith Haynes are talking absolute nonsense. It’s also a disgrace,even though some of you are obviously going to attack me for saying it,freedom of speech blah blah blah that Keith has allowed this Resloven fella to peddle his lies on here for so long. Why so many people that are supposedly Swansea City fans have no idea what has gone on/is going on is bizarre,though I do understand one not understanding. People,individuals and not the football club are facing legal action,those people are all the sellers AND Levien and Kaplan. Just so you all understand NOT THE FOOTBALL CLUB. If the legal action is successful the likes of Dineen,Jenkins,Morgan,van Zweden will be hit in the pocket,the money will not be coming out of the football club and if shares are purchased off the Trust they will be purchased at the price they were when the sale went through not at what they are next year because Burnley and Derby shares are doing well on the FTSE 100.
So you agree ? Because that’s Exactly what I said 🤪 Jeez. Bar the exclusion of the Americans who could become witnesses, have a word mate. Barrack room this way –––> get qualified.
Anybody else find this worrying 😂
This post has been edited by an administrator
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:56 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes
So you agree ? Because that’s Exactly what I said 🤪 Jeez. Bar the exclusion of the Americans who could become witnesses, have a word mate. Barrack room this way –––> get qualified.
Anybody else find this worrying 😂
This post has been edited by an administrator
”The action is against the sellers, not the club or any other entity, be that right or wrong, that’s how it is”
Yes of course you did.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:06 - Nov 21 by Darran
”The action is against the sellers, not the club or any other entity, be that right or wrong, that’s how it is”
Yes of course you did.
So we agree. Bar your American bit, who could become witnesses, have a think and a sleep mate. You will be correcting apostrophes next. Always think before you press enter.
This post has been edited by an administrator
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:07 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes
So we agree. Bar your American bit, who could become witnesses, have a think and a sleep mate. You will be correcting apostrophes next. Always think before you press enter.
This post has been edited by an administrator
Do we agree that you’re allowing someone to peddle absolute bollox,complete and utter lies just to get hits too?
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
So debate and opinion means someone telling utter lies and nonsense about an organisation that was screwed over after going a long way to saving our football club yeah?
I truly think what you have done/doing for your grandkids is magnificent Keith you get the hits mate.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 21:43 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes
It’s just how I see the the basic information supplied in open source, nothing more. A personal opinion. I just can’t see it being any other way. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. But for me, it can’t be any other way, may be the trust should open up on their mindset, that is, if they can at this point.
Any open source in particular?
I don't think ive seen it published anywhere - (from the trust themselves or the press) that the Americans would not be summoned or indeed the damages figures you have written further up the thread?
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:25 - Nov 21 by Chief
Any open source in particular?
I don't think ive seen it published anywhere - (from the trust themselves or the press) that the Americans would not be summoned or indeed the damages figures you have written further up the thread?
You haven’t seen it because it’s not true.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:23 - Nov 21 by Darran
So debate and opinion means someone telling utter lies and nonsense about an organisation that was screwed over after going a long way to saving our football club yeah?
I truly think what you have done/doing for your grandkids is magnificent Keith you get the hits mate.
Wilco mate, but opinion sometimes makes history. BTW, we are getting double Hits on last month, due to the daily news stories - not this forum, which probably amounts to around an extra £23.
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
I found this on line refering to "unfair prejudice" which may spread some light.
"The shareholders or directors who it is alleged have been guilty of unfair conduct should be named as respondents to the petition, together with all members of the Company whose interests have been affected by the alleged misconduct or who would be affected by a Court order. A third party who is not a member of the Company should also be joined if it might be affected by the remedy sought, or was directly involved in the allegedly unfairly prejudicial conduct. Finally, the Company itself is normally named as a respondent, although it is to some extent a nominal respondent."
From what I understand this includes the US people the current directors and the departed directors and the club.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:31 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1
I found this on line refering to "unfair prejudice" which may spread some light.
"The shareholders or directors who it is alleged have been guilty of unfair conduct should be named as respondents to the petition, together with all members of the Company whose interests have been affected by the alleged misconduct or who would be affected by a Court order. A third party who is not a member of the Company should also be joined if it might be affected by the remedy sought, or was directly involved in the allegedly unfairly prejudicial conduct. Finally, the Company itself is normally named as a respondent, although it is to some extent a nominal respondent."
From what I understand this includes the US people the current directors and the departed directors and the club.
[Post edited 21 Nov 2020 22:41]
What you understand and the way you try to put it across is utter bullshit. Current directors ffs. Like who?
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:25 - Nov 21 by Chief
Any open source in particular?
I don't think ive seen it published anywhere - (from the trust themselves or the press) that the Americans would not be summoned or indeed the damages figures you have written further up the thread?
It’s just my speculation based on certain conversations With both sides, alleged registered Fact in the press, personal experience and the original figures earned. And most importantly what each individual took from the sale. We can never get a definitive answer until it’s all dusted and done. My OP was purely to point out that the action was against the sellers and not the club Which Darran agreed with. Cheers mate. Discussion thereafter are open to interpretation. We won’t get any answers on here, just opinion, but I think quite a lot of people tonight will be happy it’s not an action against our club, just individuals.
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:37 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes
It’s just my speculation based on certain conversations With both sides, alleged registered Fact in the press, personal experience and the original figures earned. And most importantly what each individual took from the sale. We can never get a definitive answer until it’s all dusted and done. My OP was purely to point out that the action was against the sellers and not the club Which Darran agreed with. Cheers mate. Discussion thereafter are open to interpretation. We won’t get any answers on here, just opinion, but I think quite a lot of people tonight will be happy it’s not an action against our club, just individuals.
Hmm ok fair enough.
Court action against the club was never ever the case. So while some have inferred and insinuated that, most hsve surely seen through this.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.