| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18617 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 22:46 - Nov 21 with 1078 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:44 - Nov 21 by Darran |
Why wouldn’t I know? I’ve been a member of the Trust since day one,gone to Trust forums and get Trust updates.
What about Gareth Davies?
What about current director Jake Silverstein too? Is he also being sued?
Jeez this is laughable. |
Stay on topic mate.
I’m just interested in what you know about current directors, it’s not a challenge.
Jake thingy is not in question, he was never involved in Swansea airport. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:49 - Nov 21 with 1060 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:44 - Nov 21 by Chief |
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. |
That’s the best I can do here mate.
It’s a case of keeping it simple, you won’t get answers regards the future, not on here or on my mates site. Nothing strange here. There’s no more free radical than folk. Stick to the OP, many didnt. ✈ï¸âœˆï¸âœˆï¸
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:32 - Nov 21 with 1000 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:49 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes |
That’s the best I can do here mate.
It’s a case of keeping it simple, you won’t get answers regards the future, not on here or on my mates site. Nothing strange here. There’s no more free radical than folk. Stick to the OP, many didnt. ✈ï¸âœˆï¸âœˆï¸
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Give up mate, shelf stackers. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:45 - Nov 21 with 985 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:49 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes |
That’s the best I can do here mate.
It’s a case of keeping it simple, you won’t get answers regards the future, not on here or on my mates site. Nothing strange here. There’s no more free radical than folk. Stick to the OP, many didnt. ✈ï¸âœˆï¸âœˆï¸
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Yea well im just surprised by how different my (and others such as Resolvens) interpretation of who would be in the dock and what is going to be at stake is to yours.
It seems that it has been widely accepted that the trust were taking the Americans to court to force a sale of their shares. But this is very different to what you have said today. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:51 - Nov 21 with 977 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:45 - Nov 21 by Chief |
Yea well im just surprised by how different my (and others such as Resolvens) interpretation of who would be in the dock and what is going to be at stake is to yours.
It seems that it has been widely accepted that the trust were taking the Americans to court to force a sale of their shares. But this is very different to what you have said today. |
No its not 🙄
I very rarely agree with Keith but for God's sake read what he said. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:56 - Nov 21 with 967 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:51 - Nov 21 by NotLoyal |
No its not 🙄
I very rarely agree with Keith but for God's sake read what he said. |
I'd say that the Americans not being the defendants and the trust's shares not being sold as part of the case are pretty big revelations that deviate from what i believe most people thought was going to happen. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 23:57]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:07 - Nov 22 with 946 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:56 - Nov 21 by Chief |
I'd say that the Americans not being the defendants and the trust's shares not being sold as part of the case are pretty big revelations that deviate from what i believe most people thought was going to happen. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 23:57]
|
He didn't say they were not defendents, he said they COULD be witnesses, and also said its just an opinion. But at least we know its an individual case against the sell outs and NOT the club. I don't know why he bothered, in fact I'm seriously questioning why he bothers with this site at all, it's almost as if people haven't got the capacity to retain any information other than that of the last last goldfish that swam round the bowl. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:18 - Nov 22 with 935 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:07 - Nov 22 by NotLoyal |
He didn't say they were not defendents, he said they COULD be witnesses, and also said its just an opinion. But at least we know its an individual case against the sell outs and NOT the club. I don't know why he bothered, in fact I'm seriously questioning why he bothers with this site at all, it's almost as if people haven't got the capacity to retain any information other than that of the last last goldfish that swam round the bowl. |
Well to me there's a few posts in this thread where he presents it as fact and also mentions a 'listing'. So is there a legal docit out there listing the defendants and the case!?
Well we knew all along it was never going a case against the club so not sure why such a big thing is being made of it to be honest. And if i was being pedantic shouldn't that also be put under 'Keith's opinion' and not fact too then?
Very curious thread this. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:21 - Nov 22 with 929 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:18 - Nov 22 by Chief |
Well to me there's a few posts in this thread where he presents it as fact and also mentions a 'listing'. So is there a legal docit out there listing the defendants and the case!?
Well we knew all along it was never going a case against the club so not sure why such a big thing is being made of it to be honest. And if i was being pedantic shouldn't that also be put under 'Keith's opinion' and not fact too then?
Very curious thread this. |
To me it's just a discussion. Although if curiosity is the issue then the current board make up is even more curious.
You can say 'we', but of course you only speak for yourself, today enlightened me regards the civil case. I always thought it was against the club. Now we know its not is enough for 'us' to breath a slight sigh of relief.
Regardless of interpretation and complication or misunderstanding of what is clearly a very simple original post. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 0:26]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:26 - Nov 22 with 922 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:21 - Nov 22 by NotLoyal |
To me it's just a discussion. Although if curiosity is the issue then the current board make up is even more curious.
You can say 'we', but of course you only speak for yourself, today enlightened me regards the civil case. I always thought it was against the club. Now we know its not is enough for 'us' to breath a slight sigh of relief.
Regardless of interpretation and complication or misunderstanding of what is clearly a very simple original post. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 0:26]
|
Yes well clarity on that would be nice too | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:28 - Nov 22 with 920 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:26 - Nov 22 by Chief |
Yes well clarity on that would be nice too |
It seems to me those that know can't say a great deal at the moment. But I did a simple search when I just got in and got a revealing connection. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:40 - Nov 22 with 914 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 00:28 - Nov 22 by NotLoyal |
It seems to me those that know can't say a great deal at the moment. But I did a simple search when I just got in and got a revealing connection. |
Hmm....
What's going on then? You can't keep us in suspense | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:10 - Nov 22 with 805 views | KeithHaynes |
Here is the original post, before the thread was railroaded again, keep sight of the context of it, the reason for posting it and please join in, you can see from several other responses there is a desire to argue over certain points even though the poster agrees, which is down to an agenda to hurt the website and stifle free speech. **Warning** There are words in this post with more than four letters.
Here it is.
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
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:35 - Nov 22 with 787 views | onehunglow |
And even after all that Keith,I remain unconvinnced as regards this action.
Question is where has the wealth gone and if there is none,how can compensation be forthcoming.Are we talking Jenkins Dineen selling their homes? |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:42 - Nov 22 with 783 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:35 - Nov 22 by onehunglow |
And even after all that Keith,I remain unconvinnced as regards this action.
Question is where has the wealth gone and if there is none,how can compensation be forthcoming.Are we talking Jenkins Dineen selling their homes? |
That’s for the court to order, even if the trust win it could be non financial. The whole idea of the thread is for people to discuss and debate without the clear prejudice already seen on this topic. It takes all sorts I suppose. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:50 - Nov 22 with 775 views | onehunglow |
Keith.So if the Trust win,financially ,they would be no better off ,nor the club?
I really do not get it.
I 'd rather us move on and get back into the Prem and be sold to a Consortium with money -real money.That's my dream.I hope I live to see it.
Anyway,I'm out now.It 8 degrees and huge blue sky | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:53 - Nov 22 with 774 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:50 - Nov 22 by onehunglow |
Keith.So if the Trust win,financially ,they would be no better off ,nor the club?
I really do not get it.
I 'd rather us move on and get back into the Prem and be sold to a Consortium with money -real money.That's my dream.I hope I live to see it.
Anyway,I'm out now.It 8 degrees and huge blue sky |
If the trust win financially they win financially. The degree of the financial award is down to the court, however they could still win the case and get no financial award. It’s possible.
Enjoy your walk. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:01 - Nov 22 with 764 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:10 - Nov 22 by KeithHaynes |
Here is the original post, before the thread was railroaded again, keep sight of the context of it, the reason for posting it and please join in, you can see from several other responses there is a desire to argue over certain points even though the poster agrees, which is down to an agenda to hurt the website and stifle free speech. **Warning** There are words in this post with more than four letters.
Here it is.
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
This post has been edited by an administrator |
So what is the context?
For me the big story here is the case going in a different direction and having different outcomes to what was the general consensus. Ie that its not the Americans in the dock and the trust's shares are not part of it? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:14 - Nov 22 with 756 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:01 - Nov 22 by Chief |
So what is the context?
For me the big story here is the case going in a different direction and having different outcomes to what was the general consensus. Ie that its not the Americans in the dock and the trust's shares are not part of it? |
Is there anything in that op you don’t understand or disagree with ? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:24 - Nov 22 with 744 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:14 - Nov 22 by KeithHaynes |
Is there anything in that op you don’t understand or disagree with ? |
There's a few on here who wouldn't understand no matter what you did to help them grasp basics. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:28 - Nov 22 with 738 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:14 - Nov 22 by KeithHaynes |
Is there anything in that op you don’t understand or disagree with ? |
Only the bits in there and your succeeding posts where you mention that the Americans aren't the primary defendants&that the trusts shares will remain intact as a result of legal action.
To me there's very little published evidence to support that view but you mention a listing and words from the keyplayers.
I don't think what you are suggesting is a bad thing at all, I'm just surprised only now this course of action seems to have been laid out and that includes in correspondence directly from the trust. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:29 - Nov 22 with 737 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:24 - Nov 22 by NotLoyal |
There's a few on here who wouldn't understand no matter what you did to help them grasp basics. |
And for that reason It’s time to to take the horses down to the waterside. Have a good day. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:32 - Nov 22 with 731 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:24 - Nov 22 by NotLoyal |
There's a few on here who wouldn't understand no matter what you did to help them grasp basics. |
Hardly basic though is it. Not sure why this is being downplayed to be honest. The OP is suggesting fundamental differences in the case to what most thought and has been discussed on here for months / years | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:37 - Nov 22 with 725 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:29 - Nov 22 by KeithHaynes |
And for that reason It’s time to to take the horses down to the waterside. Have a good day. |
And now cloak and dagger inferences to go along with another poster hinting at something going on at boardroom level.
Somethings afoot | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:39 - Nov 22 with 1156 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:32 - Nov 22 by Chief |
Hardly basic though is it. Not sure why this is being downplayed to be honest. The OP is suggesting fundamental differences in the case to what most thought and has been discussed on here for months / years |
OK, what differences are there in his op? I see none.
Just a clear post with the last paragraph being something you should revisit.
And I was surprised as you to read about trust shares so I looked, he has never mentioned trust shares once. This is the problem, unfounded stuff like that labels people contrary to their position. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.