| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18643 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 11:02 - Nov 23 with 988 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:54 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
No.You are making assumptions of me ,which is always dangerous |
So why did you bother making the distinction then? |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:04 - Nov 23 with 980 views | onehunglow |
| 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.
Goodnight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2 |
Burnley and Derby shares FTSE 100?
Do what?  |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:06 - Nov 23 with 974 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 10:46 - Nov 23 by Whiterockin |
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. |
A guaranteed buyer and therefore money.
Potentially but of course there's no guarantee we go up and then no guarantee we'd get someone else to buy the shares. And if we did who would they be? Would they have the club's best interest at heart? [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 11:22]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:07 - Nov 23 with 967 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:00 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
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 |
It is indeed a terrible turn of events and perpetrators probably shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:11 - Nov 23 with 959 views | onehunglow |
No guarantees then.
Ive just been wading through the crap on PS and it really does show what this action is all about and Swansea City seems little to do with it.
I though,the sell would have moved us forward. Some others did to. Apparently that is a hanging offence. Things is,why the net experts allowed it to go through.
It is to spite those who sold and to try to get money off them . Just OMG
You can quote me on that as well. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:16 - Nov 23 with 955 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:11 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
No guarantees then.
Ive just been wading through the crap on PS and it really does show what this action is all about and Swansea City seems little to do with it.
I though,the sell would have moved us forward. Some others did to. Apparently that is a hanging offence. Things is,why the net experts allowed it to go through.
It is to spite those who sold and to try to get money off them . Just OMG
You can quote me on that as well. |
Expecting guarantees are unfeasible. Life rarely works like that.
Yes and what's wrong with that? (if that's how the case is brought-it may not be) that money will be in the hands of the trust and not used for anything else but in connection to the club. That is a guarantee actually. That you won't get with the resources of any other shareholder or owner. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:54 - Nov 23 with 914 views | Whiterockin |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:06 - Nov 23 by Chief |
A guaranteed buyer and therefore money.
Potentially but of course there's no guarantee we go up and then no guarantee we'd get someone else to buy the shares. And if we did who would they be? Would they have the club's best interest at heart? [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 11:22]
|
There are no guarantees in football, not even a buyer.
Personally I don't think the current owners are doing a bad job. If we were to peruse a claim against previous owners, there would be little chance of getting any real value except revenge. |  | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:01 - Nov 23 with 906 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:54 - Nov 23 by Whiterockin |
There are no guarantees in football, not even a buyer.
Personally I don't think the current owners are doing a bad job. If we were to peruse a claim against previous owners, there would be little chance of getting any real value except revenge. |
Well a court ordering them to buy the shares would be as close a guarantee as you'll get.
Neither do i - I've said we could do a lot worse. But to me that's completely irrelevant.
If its against the previous owners, the trust would still keep their shares which as you say would be worth a lot in the event of promotion. And potentially have received damages - a hefty amount if you believe the OPs estimates from earlier in this thread. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:05 - Nov 23 with 899 views | Whiterockin |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:01 - Nov 23 by Chief |
Well a court ordering them to buy the shares would be as close a guarantee as you'll get.
Neither do i - I've said we could do a lot worse. But to me that's completely irrelevant.
If its against the previous owners, the trust would still keep their shares which as you say would be worth a lot in the event of promotion. And potentially have received damages - a hefty amount if you believe the OPs estimates from earlier in this thread. |
Well a court ordering them to buy the shares would be as close a guarantee as you'll get.
Who the current owners? if its not them taken to court that will not happen.
If the previous owners are taken to court for compensation, good luck with getting much out of them. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:13 - Nov 23 with 883 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:05 - Nov 23 by Whiterockin |
Well a court ordering them to buy the shares would be as close a guarantee as you'll get.
Who the current owners? if its not them taken to court that will not happen.
If the previous owners are taken to court for compensation, good luck with getting much out of them. |
Yes until this thread myself and it seems many others thought the court action was to force the Americans to buy the trust's shares under the same terms as the sellouts. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:15 - Nov 23 with 878 views | Whiterockin |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:13 - Nov 23 by Chief |
Yes until this thread myself and it seems many others thought the court action was to force the Americans to buy the trust's shares under the same terms as the sellouts. |
So who if anybody is the trust taking to court. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:22 - Nov 23 with 865 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:15 - Nov 23 by Whiterockin |
So who if anybody is the trust taking to court. |
The OP says the sellouts only (to begin with).
Most other sources say both sellouts and American buyers. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:23 - Nov 23 with 865 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:54 - Nov 22 by scruffyjack |
Scenario 3.
The buyer didn’t walk away, they withdrew the offer, when they realised the threat of relegation. |
The buyer walked away from talks in 2017 with the Trust in chaos having seen two chairmen resign. The reason the buyer walked away and withdrew their offer was the well documented acrimony on the sellers side and the wish to remainon good terms. This is the reason they gave. In general buyers will not force through a purchase where the seller is infighting. Your reason is speculation.
The way I see it the Trust are very difficult people to deal with. Even now in this thread no one appears exactly clear what they want. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 12:34]
|  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:29 - Nov 23 with 859 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:23 - Nov 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The buyer walked away from talks in 2017 with the Trust in chaos having seen two chairmen resign. The reason the buyer walked away and withdrew their offer was the well documented acrimony on the sellers side and the wish to remainon good terms. This is the reason they gave. In general buyers will not force through a purchase where the seller is infighting. Your reason is speculation.
The way I see it the Trust are very difficult people to deal with. Even now in this thread no one appears exactly clear what they want. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 12:34]
|
Your reason is based on the Americans testimony alone. Who we already know are deceitful. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:08 - Nov 23 with 822 views | Whiterockin |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:22 - Nov 23 by Chief |
The OP says the sellouts only (to begin with).
Most other sources say both sellouts and American buyers. |
So nobody knows with any certainty who if anybody is being taken to court. A ridiculous state of affairs. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:15 - Nov 23 with 810 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:08 - Nov 23 by Whiterockin |
So nobody knows with any certainty who if anybody is being taken to court. A ridiculous state of affairs. |
Its difficult to disagree with that to be honest.
Clarity should soon come though as per the Trust's last update. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:38 - Nov 23 with 801 views | Whiterockin |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:15 - Nov 23 by Chief |
Its difficult to disagree with that to be honest.
Clarity should soon come though as per the Trust's last update. |
Although I am replying to your posts I'm not having a go at you.
I was a trust member when we voted on taking action. We were led to believe that the current owners did not follow the correct procedure when buying the club and I believed the vote was on taking action to compensate for this. If any legal action is not for this then surly the original vote does not stand. TBH there may have been subsequent votes on the subject I am unaware of because I am no longer a member (basically because I feel the trust is not fit for purpose). But if not how can the trust proceed with legal action different from what was voted on.
Hopefully someone from the trust board will come on here and explain exactly what is going on. We can speculate all day long but as supporters we need to be made aware of the facts. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 14:00]
| | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:45 - Nov 23 with 794 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:52 - Nov 22 by Chief |
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? |
When did the op at any point mention shares ? |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:48 - Nov 23 with 786 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:45 - Nov 23 by NotLoyal |
When did the op at any point mention shares ? |
The original poster mentions them in several posts if you scroll back to the first page. He replies to a question i asked specifically referring to shares.
And here's a quote from page 3 from the original poster:
"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."
[Post edited 23 Nov 2020 13:55]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:50 - Nov 23 with 782 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:38 - Nov 23 by Whiterockin |
Although I am replying to your posts I'm not having a go at you.
I was a trust member when we voted on taking action. We were led to believe that the current owners did not follow the correct procedure when buying the club and I believed the vote was on taking action to compensate for this. If any legal action is not for this then surly the original vote does not stand. TBH there may have been subsequent votes on the subject I am unaware of because I am no longer a member (basically because I feel the trust is not fit for purpose). But if not how can the trust proceed with legal action different from what was voted on.
Hopefully someone from the trust board will come on here and explain exactly what is going on. We can speculate all day long but as supporters we need to be made aware of the facts. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 14:00]
|
Im in the same boat as you on what i thought legal action was for.
I also agree if that has changed the members should be briefed on it.
Agree on the last point too. There are obviously conflicting views on what legal action entails. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:30 - Nov 23 with 719 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:50 - Nov 23 by Chief |
Im in the same boat as you on what i thought legal action was for.
I also agree if that has changed the members should be briefed on it.
Agree on the last point too. There are obviously conflicting views on what legal action entails. |
Thoughts and plans for legal action were considered appropraite 4 and 1/2 years ago. As time has gone on the Trust 'strategists' will need to consider.
a) The true reality of the Judge's warning that legal action was a "last resort". What did he mean?
b) As discussions have proceded do they in reality still have a "strong case"?
c) Who of them is brave enough and strong enough to testify in court on oath?
d) Do the costs add up when fees and cost are taken into consideration?
e) Has inflation invalidated any calculations of cash gain from legal action?
f) Can relations with the US owners and other shareholders be recovered given the departure of some of the key protgonists that unnecessarily created friction and bad feeling.?
If I was a Trust member and it was my own money I would not give legal action 30 seconds of consideration time. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:59 - Nov 23 with 708 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:30 - Nov 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Thoughts and plans for legal action were considered appropraite 4 and 1/2 years ago. As time has gone on the Trust 'strategists' will need to consider.
a) The true reality of the Judge's warning that legal action was a "last resort". What did he mean?
b) As discussions have proceded do they in reality still have a "strong case"?
c) Who of them is brave enough and strong enough to testify in court on oath?
d) Do the costs add up when fees and cost are taken into consideration?
e) Has inflation invalidated any calculations of cash gain from legal action?
f) Can relations with the US owners and other shareholders be recovered given the departure of some of the key protgonists that unnecessarily created friction and bad feeling.?
If I was a Trust member and it was my own money I would not give legal action 30 seconds of consideration time. |
a) this has been pointed out to you several times-this was wise to demonstrate to the court that all options were exhausted before getting to court.
b) a QC stated that they do have a strong case.
c) As boardmembers they should know that testifying was inevitable and they would have known this all along.
d) presumably - why would unpaid trust members waste their time preparing the case and all that entails if it wouldn't?
e) pretty irrelevant-inflation only matters if a buyer is found. Maybe the court will take inflation into account anyway. Plus earlier posts on thread suggest the trusts shares aren't on the table.
f) seeing Winter is the day to day man and is not involved in the case - yes probably.
Lucky the trust members are not as meek and or short sighted as you then | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:10 - Nov 23 with 702 views | scruffyjack |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:23 - Nov 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The buyer walked away from talks in 2017 with the Trust in chaos having seen two chairmen resign. The reason the buyer walked away and withdrew their offer was the well documented acrimony on the sellers side and the wish to remainon good terms. This is the reason they gave. In general buyers will not force through a purchase where the seller is infighting. Your reason is speculation.
The way I see it the Trust are very difficult people to deal with. Even now in this thread no one appears exactly clear what they want. [Post edited 23 Nov 2020 12:34]
|
Yet more entertainment! We both know I’m right but I’ll take my hat off to you, the lengths you go to on your disinformation campaign knows no bounds. Unfortunately for you, I, and a lot of others on this site, see right through it. But please don’t stop Lord Haw Haw. | | | |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:42 - Nov 23 with 668 views | onehunglow |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 11:54 - Nov 23 by Whiterockin |
There are no guarantees in football, not even a buyer.
Personally I don't think the current owners are doing a bad job. If we were to peruse a claim against previous owners, there would be little chance of getting any real value except revenge. |
...which is my point.Revenge is something for gangsters and the narrow minded .
It is an issue of simply vengeance based on people making a lot of money out of our club sale.
Just who was involved exactly and what exactly do they say about this sorry mess.
It's a not easy expressing views that go against many but life is like that. I stand by every word.
BTW, any keyboard warrior wanting to discuss matters ,Iwill willingly pop down to Newtown ,halfway point,buy you lunch and have a face to face rather than posts shyte | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:52 - Nov 23 with 874 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:42 - Nov 23 by onehunglow |
...which is my point.Revenge is something for gangsters and the narrow minded .
It is an issue of simply vengeance based on people making a lot of money out of our club sale.
Just who was involved exactly and what exactly do they say about this sorry mess.
It's a not easy expressing views that go against many but life is like that. I stand by every word.
BTW, any keyboard warrior wanting to discuss matters ,Iwill willingly pop down to Newtown ,halfway point,buy you lunch and have a face to face rather than posts shyte |
But you know these proceedings wouldn't be going ahead on revenge alone.
If there were no monetary gains to be had the trust wouldn't be bothering. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.