| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18655 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 12:52 - Nov 22 with 1320 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:39 - Nov 22 by NotLoyal |
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. |
Why are we only considering his first op?
Yes he says its his take but later says he's got his views from 'open sources' and mentions a listing too. But where are these documents?
Go back to page one where i explicitly ask him about shares. He mentions it in a few posts on page 1. Plenty of mentions of shares.
Why is there now some sort of cover up or denial about what's been said? |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:28 - Nov 22 with 1219 views | QJumpingJack |
Levien should be held to account for his comments at the fans forum.
It may answer a lot of questions. His comment about not engaging with the Trust has thrown the previous board under the bus with it being recorded / available on audio. If I were Jenkins and co I would be unhappy if the comment is true or untrue. |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:47 - Nov 22 with 1185 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 17:28 - Nov 22 by QJumpingJack |
Levien should be held to account for his comments at the fans forum.
It may answer a lot of questions. His comment about not engaging with the Trust has thrown the previous board under the bus with it being recorded / available on audio. If I were Jenkins and co I would be unhappy if the comment is true or untrue. |
Scenario 1 The Trust are involved with the US people.
The Trust do not know if they want to sell or not. They have to discuss with the members and have a vote with their members which will take about a year. The sale is against their crasy strategy to get to 25%. They will not sell voting rights. They want no changes, Ths club is doing fine. They do not accept dilution.
Result The buyer walks away. No one sells.
Scenarion 2: The Trust are not involved with the US intially.
Discussions are held and 79% shareholders agree a price for shares and selling voting rights. Three shareholders remain with about 11%. The Trust issue will be discussed later. They are known for not being keen on selling. After the annoucement the Trust make no effort to join the sale March 2016 to July 2016. The sale is closed July 2016.
Result. The buyer gets wants he wants with no delays and no conflict and takes over running of the club. They enter into discussions with the Trust.
Scenario 3: The Trust are involved one year later. The Trust has a mandate and 4 months of talks are held with reportedly the same terms. Terms are not agreed. Chairman resigns reportedly unhappy at terms. Acrimony and in fighting occurs. A second chairman resigns.
Result: The buyer walks away.
Scenario 4 Legal action. It takes a year to arrange a vote. A vote for legal action is agreed. This process has already lasted FOUR and HALF YEARS and counting.
Not engaging with the Trust sounds like a pretty good idea to me if you want to get anything done. You have people that want to get things done and people that want to hold meetings and complain about things. Swansea city does not need the oil tanker that is the SCST they never really did. It was a bad idea. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:22 - Nov 22 with 1148 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:47 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Scenario 1 The Trust are involved with the US people.
The Trust do not know if they want to sell or not. They have to discuss with the members and have a vote with their members which will take about a year. The sale is against their crasy strategy to get to 25%. They will not sell voting rights. They want no changes, Ths club is doing fine. They do not accept dilution.
Result The buyer walks away. No one sells.
Scenarion 2: The Trust are not involved with the US intially.
Discussions are held and 79% shareholders agree a price for shares and selling voting rights. Three shareholders remain with about 11%. The Trust issue will be discussed later. They are known for not being keen on selling. After the annoucement the Trust make no effort to join the sale March 2016 to July 2016. The sale is closed July 2016.
Result. The buyer gets wants he wants with no delays and no conflict and takes over running of the club. They enter into discussions with the Trust.
Scenario 3: The Trust are involved one year later. The Trust has a mandate and 4 months of talks are held with reportedly the same terms. Terms are not agreed. Chairman resigns reportedly unhappy at terms. Acrimony and in fighting occurs. A second chairman resigns.
Result: The buyer walks away.
Scenario 4 Legal action. It takes a year to arrange a vote. A vote for legal action is agreed. This process has already lasted FOUR and HALF YEARS and counting.
Not engaging with the Trust sounds like a pretty good idea to me if you want to get anything done. You have people that want to get things done and people that want to hold meetings and complain about things. Swansea city does not need the oil tanker that is the SCST they never really did. It was a bad idea. |
Yea we are fully aware the sell outs&the yanks kept the trust out of negotiations to further their own causes.
But that may prove a bad move seeing as it left them potentially susceptible to litigation. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:25 - Nov 22 with 1146 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:47 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Scenario 1 The Trust are involved with the US people.
The Trust do not know if they want to sell or not. They have to discuss with the members and have a vote with their members which will take about a year. The sale is against their crasy strategy to get to 25%. They will not sell voting rights. They want no changes, Ths club is doing fine. They do not accept dilution.
Result The buyer walks away. No one sells.
Scenarion 2: The Trust are not involved with the US intially.
Discussions are held and 79% shareholders agree a price for shares and selling voting rights. Three shareholders remain with about 11%. The Trust issue will be discussed later. They are known for not being keen on selling. After the annoucement the Trust make no effort to join the sale March 2016 to July 2016. The sale is closed July 2016.
Result. The buyer gets wants he wants with no delays and no conflict and takes over running of the club. They enter into discussions with the Trust.
Scenario 3: The Trust are involved one year later. The Trust has a mandate and 4 months of talks are held with reportedly the same terms. Terms are not agreed. Chairman resigns reportedly unhappy at terms. Acrimony and in fighting occurs. A second chairman resigns.
Result: The buyer walks away.
Scenario 4 Legal action. It takes a year to arrange a vote. A vote for legal action is agreed. This process has already lasted FOUR and HALF YEARS and counting.
Not engaging with the Trust sounds like a pretty good idea to me if you want to get anything done. You have people that want to get things done and people that want to hold meetings and complain about things. Swansea city does not need the oil tanker that is the SCST they never really did. It was a bad idea. |
Have to say ,good post.
What annoys me is the obfuscation involved in all this and by local Swansea too.
United we are not | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:29 - Nov 22 with 1141 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:25 - Nov 22 by onehunglow |
Have to say ,good post.
What annoys me is the obfuscation involved in all this and by local Swansea too.
United we are not |
And that's sad.
Essentially this is what helps outside forces that have come into the club. Divide and conquer. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:44 - Nov 22 with 1125 views | onehunglow |
It's true though innit.
I view the Trust as being founded to prevent us being shafted as we were with the likes of Petty. It was for protection.
There is clear division and looking at fan forums it is obvious as day. I have commented previously of the perception that the Welsh can be devious ,two faced and tribal. .Nothing illustrates this better than our club and what has and is going on.
The Trust is not trusted by all and many in the Trust clearly didnt trust others in the Trust.
Ideally,I would like to see no Trust at all,just a club run by owners who give a shyte,have business acumen and have fans interests at heart. Right now,it's a miracle we are surviving as we are. We are a club with massive potential yet we seem unattractive as a proposition. Looking at this possible action, you can see why. Football is a small world and word gets around as regards the way we are set up and what goes on.
The action might well be not against the club per se but it involves the club and people will link the two.
Floreat Swansea | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:54 - Nov 22 with 1104 views | scruffyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:47 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Scenario 1 The Trust are involved with the US people.
The Trust do not know if they want to sell or not. They have to discuss with the members and have a vote with their members which will take about a year. The sale is against their crasy strategy to get to 25%. They will not sell voting rights. They want no changes, Ths club is doing fine. They do not accept dilution.
Result The buyer walks away. No one sells.
Scenarion 2: The Trust are not involved with the US intially.
Discussions are held and 79% shareholders agree a price for shares and selling voting rights. Three shareholders remain with about 11%. The Trust issue will be discussed later. They are known for not being keen on selling. After the annoucement the Trust make no effort to join the sale March 2016 to July 2016. The sale is closed July 2016.
Result. The buyer gets wants he wants with no delays and no conflict and takes over running of the club. They enter into discussions with the Trust.
Scenario 3: The Trust are involved one year later. The Trust has a mandate and 4 months of talks are held with reportedly the same terms. Terms are not agreed. Chairman resigns reportedly unhappy at terms. Acrimony and in fighting occurs. A second chairman resigns.
Result: The buyer walks away.
Scenario 4 Legal action. It takes a year to arrange a vote. A vote for legal action is agreed. This process has already lasted FOUR and HALF YEARS and counting.
Not engaging with the Trust sounds like a pretty good idea to me if you want to get anything done. You have people that want to get things done and people that want to hold meetings and complain about things. Swansea city does not need the oil tanker that is the SCST they never really did. It was a bad idea. |
Scenario 3.
The buyer didn’t walk away, they withdrew the offer, when they realised the threat of relegation. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 20:16 - Nov 22 with 1080 views | onehunglow |
It a good post because it makes a point without the hatred you spout.
Why not come on here ,make it obvious as to who you are ,then engage like a man with some decency. You cant always rely on your pose of reporters on here.
Merry Christmas friend and hope that Uke han't been dumped in the bin out of spite. [Post edited 22 Nov 2020 20:18]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:02 - Nov 22 with 1020 views | Catullus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:47 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Scenario 1 The Trust are involved with the US people.
The Trust do not know if they want to sell or not. They have to discuss with the members and have a vote with their members which will take about a year. The sale is against their crasy strategy to get to 25%. They will not sell voting rights. They want no changes, Ths club is doing fine. They do not accept dilution.
Result The buyer walks away. No one sells.
Scenarion 2: The Trust are not involved with the US intially.
Discussions are held and 79% shareholders agree a price for shares and selling voting rights. Three shareholders remain with about 11%. The Trust issue will be discussed later. They are known for not being keen on selling. After the annoucement the Trust make no effort to join the sale March 2016 to July 2016. The sale is closed July 2016.
Result. The buyer gets wants he wants with no delays and no conflict and takes over running of the club. They enter into discussions with the Trust.
Scenario 3: The Trust are involved one year later. The Trust has a mandate and 4 months of talks are held with reportedly the same terms. Terms are not agreed. Chairman resigns reportedly unhappy at terms. Acrimony and in fighting occurs. A second chairman resigns.
Result: The buyer walks away.
Scenario 4 Legal action. It takes a year to arrange a vote. A vote for legal action is agreed. This process has already lasted FOUR and HALF YEARS and counting.
Not engaging with the Trust sounds like a pretty good idea to me if you want to get anything done. You have people that want to get things done and people that want to hold meetings and complain about things. Swansea city does not need the oil tanker that is the SCST they never really did. It was a bad idea. |
Those scenarios are spun to suit your argument and worthless, at the end, the outcomes are simply your opinion.
As we know the trust were kept out of the sale at the behest of the previous owners putting up those scenarios is pure spin.
The Americans were asked/told not to involve the trust and went ahead with the purchase anyway. Maybe they should have been wondering then what was going on? Maybe as experienced businessmen they should have asked more questions, been wondering what the issue was? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 23:11 - Nov 22 with 991 views | Garyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:47 - Nov 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Scenario 1 The Trust are involved with the US people.
The Trust do not know if they want to sell or not. They have to discuss with the members and have a vote with their members which will take about a year. The sale is against their crasy strategy to get to 25%. They will not sell voting rights. They want no changes, Ths club is doing fine. They do not accept dilution.
Result The buyer walks away. No one sells.
Scenarion 2: The Trust are not involved with the US intially.
Discussions are held and 79% shareholders agree a price for shares and selling voting rights. Three shareholders remain with about 11%. The Trust issue will be discussed later. They are known for not being keen on selling. After the annoucement the Trust make no effort to join the sale March 2016 to July 2016. The sale is closed July 2016.
Result. The buyer gets wants he wants with no delays and no conflict and takes over running of the club. They enter into discussions with the Trust.
Scenario 3: The Trust are involved one year later. The Trust has a mandate and 4 months of talks are held with reportedly the same terms. Terms are not agreed. Chairman resigns reportedly unhappy at terms. Acrimony and in fighting occurs. A second chairman resigns.
Result: The buyer walks away.
Scenario 4 Legal action. It takes a year to arrange a vote. A vote for legal action is agreed. This process has already lasted FOUR and HALF YEARS and counting.
Not engaging with the Trust sounds like a pretty good idea to me if you want to get anything done. You have people that want to get things done and people that want to hold meetings and complain about things. Swansea city does not need the oil tanker that is the SCST they never really did. It was a bad idea. |
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...............
Scenario 1.
In Oct 2014, Huw Jenkins reported that there was interest of 'investment' (share sale) to American pair John Jay Moores and Charles Noell, the Trust carried out due dilligence on the pair and informed the other shareholders that they didn't feel they were suitable future custodians for a stake in the football club.
Ironically, some months later the same pair expressed an interest in Everton fc, and after investigations carried out by Everton fc fans and owners, their interest was rejected, and Evertons owners widened their search for someone who actually wanted to invest in the club
https://royalbluemersey.sbnati
Result. Thanks to the trust, a potential bullet was dodged, despite the other shareholders failing to carry out the most basic of checks to find out the background behind the people they wished to sell their shares to.
Scenario 2.
Thwarted by the Trust first time around but undeterred, the sellers carry on with their search for a buyer of their shares, and colluded to omit the trust from any negotiations or involvement. I mean "They did due dilligence on the last lot, what if they do it again!".
So in come Kaplan and Levein and their 27 strong hedge fund and purchase 68% of the club with the sell outs giving up their voting rights to give them full control just for good measure. Despite this massive red flag, at this point the trust felt it was in the best interests of the club that they try to form a working relationship with the new owners.
Result. The sellers get what they want without a care in the world for the long term future of the club, despite claims of investment and then from Leigh Dineen especially, that the club were in a better position to 'take the hit' of potential relegation. Neither of course turned out to have an ounce of truth as we were not prepared financially in the slightest for relegation, and the hedge fund has yet to invest one single penny in Swansea City, just like the sell outs didn't either, but for some weird reason you believe the Trust should be doing so!
Scenario 3.
Talks on a partial share sale are held, and a deal a is agreed which is put to a members vote which was agreed, but it certainly was not under the same terms as the sellouts received. The trust were basically accepting to take what they could get. From memory it was £6m for 6% of the trust shares with a further £1m for 1% per year thereafter up to a total of 10% provided the club remained in the Premier league. Again from memory the yanks then tried to change the terms of the agreement which resulted in the resignation of Phil Sumbler. The incoming chairman resigned some weeks later due to online abuse, some of it granted was unnecessary, But tell me, why would the yanks pullout because of infighting within the trust? Why would they care? They had secured a deal to close any issues with the trust with a deal they could have only hoped for in their wildest dreams!
Result. The Yanks weasled out due to the threat of relegation
Scenario 4.
Legal action. It's obviously taken this long due to some of the reasons i've stated above. The trust wanting to form a working relationship, the withdrawn offer etc. But the Trust have followed every step laid out by counsel.
Now you may think that the SCST is on oil tanker that was never needed by the other shareholders, but they were quite happy to accept the £200k raised by fans to save the club in 2002, and indeed the money raised for the 'Battle for Britton' fund to pay Leon Brittons wages and keep him at the club. Which ironically was the last investment into the club by anyone! |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:52 - Nov 23 with 908 views | onehunglow |
...and the action ,as it doesnt apparently involved the club/owners has no positive impact on the club.
Some classic long posts on this club but it essence,it is utterly a waste of time .
What did our net experts on the sale do a regards blocking the sale? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:57 - Nov 23 with 906 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:52 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
...and the action ,as it doesnt apparently involved the club/owners has no positive impact on the club.
Some classic long posts on this club but it essence,it is utterly a waste of time .
What did our net experts on the sale do a regards blocking the sale? |
So do you think if action did involve the owners that it would have a positive impact then? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:58 - Nov 23 with 905 views | swancity |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:52 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
...and the action ,as it doesnt apparently involved the club/owners has no positive impact on the club.
Some classic long posts on this club but it essence,it is utterly a waste of time .
What did our net experts on the sale do a regards blocking the sale? |
Getting what is yours and seeking justice has never been a waste of time ... | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:07 - Nov 23 with 902 views | onehunglow |
Nige.
Disagree,sometimes it's best to let go.
If it doesnt benefit the club then for me it is an unnecessary side show.
Has Jenkins buggered off to pain and laying low? Ive tried winding up Dineen on twitter but seemed only to wind up the wrong person. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:12 - Nov 23 with 901 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:07 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
Nige.
Disagree,sometimes it's best to let go.
If it doesnt benefit the club then for me it is an unnecessary side show.
Has Jenkins buggered off to pain and laying low? Ive tried winding up Dineen on twitter but seemed only to wind up the wrong person. |
Look at the bigger picture and think long term.
This may provide a very short distraction (unlikely without fans in the ground anyway) but the money will be there for when its needed in the future. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:23 - Nov 23 with 891 views | onehunglow |
I'll try but I might not live to see it.
I remain unconvinced but thank you for engaging with me in a respectful way.Seriously.I have had unfettered abuse as regards this thorny subject so it makes a change. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:25 - Nov 23 with 891 views | Whiterockin |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:12 - Nov 23 by Chief |
Look at the bigger picture and think long term.
This may provide a very short distraction (unlikely without fans in the ground anyway) but the money will be there for when its needed in the future. |
Just say we were to get promoted before any court case, the value of the trusts shares would be more than at the time of the takeover. Would it then be worthwhile, no money would come in and the trust may well have to pay costs and there is no value lost. |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:32 - Nov 23 with 881 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:25 - Nov 23 by Whiterockin |
Just say we were to get promoted before any court case, the value of the trusts shares would be more than at the time of the takeover. Would it then be worthwhile, no money would come in and the trust may well have to pay costs and there is no value lost. |
- That depends what you course you think has been taken. According to the OP the trust would still have their shares even with a court victory.
- If you think a trust victory results in the Americans buying their shares, then there's a guaranteed buyer& the matter comes to a close. Just getting promoted would increase the share price, but have no guaranteed buyer.
- Yes losing is a risk with every case but whatever route the case goes the trust will still have their shares at the end of it. There's also the possibility of a no win no fee scenario. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:33 - Nov 23 with 880 views | onehunglow |
So it eems to get "justice",there are risks and uncertainties and we are in the hands of the Legal Profession.
Friends,we are nuts to go through with this.
Everything should be about getting back to the Prem and making the club more attractive to better owners. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:36 - Nov 23 with 877 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:33 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
So it eems to get "justice",there are risks and uncertainties and we are in the hands of the Legal Profession.
Friends,we are nuts to go through with this.
Everything should be about getting back to the Prem and making the club more attractive to better owners. |
Plenty of uncertainties and risks with not getting justice too.
You are obviously not enamoured with the majority owners. How will they treat the club after this season when the parachute money drys up? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:45 - Nov 23 with 871 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 22:07 - Nov 21 by Darran |
Nice edit too just so your chums can attack me. |
Retirement.Really.
As for lies,then you are expert .
Just leave this site as it is. Clean | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:46 - Nov 23 with 869 views | Whiterockin |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:32 - Nov 23 by Chief |
- That depends what you course you think has been taken. According to the OP the trust would still have their shares even with a court victory.
- If you think a trust victory results in the Americans buying their shares, then there's a guaranteed buyer& the matter comes to a close. Just getting promoted would increase the share price, but have no guaranteed buyer.
- Yes losing is a risk with every case but whatever route the case goes the trust will still have their shares at the end of it. There's also the possibility of a no win no fee scenario. |
If the trust would still own the shares and they were worth more at the time of court action, what is to be gained?
Apart from retribution, would it be a case of cutting off your nose ect. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:54 - Nov 23 with 854 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 09:57 - Nov 23 by Chief |
So do you think if action did involve the owners that it would have a positive impact then? |
No.You are making assumptions of me ,which is always dangerous | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:00 - Nov 23 with 1108 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:36 - Nov 23 by Chief |
Plenty of uncertainties and risks with not getting justice too.
You are obviously not enamoured with the majority owners. How will they treat the club after this season when the parachute money drys up? |
I m not.You're right. No idea.I m just a fan and I want privy to what went on at the sale of the century.
Evidences my view of us Welsh being duplicitous and prone to back stabbing ,doesnt it.
This dubious sale involved local ,albeit Neath people, being so utterly two faced over the thing they supposed to love,ie Swansea City FC.
My God,do we need new owners and a complete change of mind set.
I have plenty of Liverpool Everton chums who believe we really do belong in the Prem yet here we are more concerned about trying to strip away the wealth of a former chairman and his dingbat chum. This is a black comedy.
I aint laughing | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.