| Swansea city a great club. 14:04 - Dec 17 with 3025 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Roberto speaks. I have a lot of time for the likes of Roberto, Huw, of course, and Brendan. The legacy lives on. I love the club's history and have little time for whingers. I was mightliy impressed when Flynn Martinez and Rodgers all showed up for Alan Tate's testimonial. A special club. Was Potter there then?. Another great appointment.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/ [Post edited 17 Dec 2020 14:21]
|  |
| |  |
| Swansea city a great club. on 12:03 - Dec 24 with 633 views | BillyChong |
| Swansea city a great club. on 08:05 - Dec 19 by KeithHaynes |
I remember the Wigan away game in the cup. Estimations of the away following for a midweek game were mad, was it 5,000 ? |
Yes that was mad. Mainly on the basis of travelling up to yell abuse at Martinez! |  | | |
| Swansea city a great club. (n/t) on 12:35 - Dec 24 with 627 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea city a great club. (n/t) on 12:20 - Dec 22 by Chief |
You made a remark about the previous owners buying / wasting money on poor transfers didn't you? He somehow turned it into some tenuous random dig at the trust.
But now you now want to veer off too into the circumstances surrounding the sale of club?
To answer your point&you know this because you've said it yourself enough. The trust weren't given the opportunity to oversee the sale until it was too late so couldn't investigate abt machiavelian ongoings that may have occurred |
The Trust were not set up as 'auditors' 'checkers' 'assessors' or some form of trade union. It is not in their mission statement. This is where they lost their way in my opinion. Rampant virtue signalling now rampant in the UK.
Fans in south Wales are not used to being owners and steeped in leftist principles. Instead of "cashing in" they are more comfortable "holding the club to account". What for? The club has proffesional auditors with published accounts. After difficult 4 years there is little sign of any thing of concern. The US owners holding is located in Delaware which has privacy priviliges but fans do not need to worry about that. Its none of their business.
The Trust were set up to increase their holding and the involvement of the fans in the running of the club. The best method of doing this was by selling in the Premier league and reinvesting in League 1 or the championship. Remember, unlike any other interest the Trust can afford to wait. This should have been obvious. To do this they had to make it clear they were keen to sell at least some of their holding early and at all times maintain good relations with other shareholders. They did neither of these things.
There was nothing machivellian about the sale as far as I can see. The Trust stated very clearly in 2015 they were not for selling. The others got on with it with out them . The Trust then asked to become involved in the talks for monitoring purposes. They had no such rights or obligations to do this as far as I am aware. They are not de facto auditors or assessors. [Post edited 24 Dec 2020 14:28]
| |
| |
| Swansea city a great club. (n/t) on 14:52 - Dec 24 with 591 views | Chief |
| Swansea city a great club. (n/t) on 12:35 - Dec 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust were not set up as 'auditors' 'checkers' 'assessors' or some form of trade union. It is not in their mission statement. This is where they lost their way in my opinion. Rampant virtue signalling now rampant in the UK.
Fans in south Wales are not used to being owners and steeped in leftist principles. Instead of "cashing in" they are more comfortable "holding the club to account". What for? The club has proffesional auditors with published accounts. After difficult 4 years there is little sign of any thing of concern. The US owners holding is located in Delaware which has privacy priviliges but fans do not need to worry about that. Its none of their business.
The Trust were set up to increase their holding and the involvement of the fans in the running of the club. The best method of doing this was by selling in the Premier league and reinvesting in League 1 or the championship. Remember, unlike any other interest the Trust can afford to wait. This should have been obvious. To do this they had to make it clear they were keen to sell at least some of their holding early and at all times maintain good relations with other shareholders. They did neither of these things.
There was nothing machivellian about the sale as far as I can see. The Trust stated very clearly in 2015 they were not for selling. The others got on with it with out them . The Trust then asked to become involved in the talks for monitoring purposes. They had no such rights or obligations to do this as far as I am aware. They are not de facto auditors or assessors. [Post edited 24 Dec 2020 14:28]
|
Ignoring the all the bluster and conjecture in your post unsuitable for this thread:
Keeping an eye on the club's majority falls squarely within the trust's remit of maintaining a professional football club in Swansea. [Post edited 24 Dec 2020 15:06]
|  |
| |
| Swansea city a great club. (n/t) on 18:30 - Dec 24 with 572 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea city a great club. (n/t) on 14:52 - Dec 24 by Chief |
Ignoring the all the bluster and conjecture in your post unsuitable for this thread:
Keeping an eye on the club's majority falls squarely within the trust's remit of maintaining a professional football club in Swansea. [Post edited 24 Dec 2020 15:06]
|
While their remit might best be served by being involved in sale talks there was no obligation to include them as far as I know. They have no auditing role in the club. Clearly putting at least some of their own shares up for sale after 2015 would have insured their inclusion and best served their remit. | |
| |
| Swansea city a great club. (n/t) on 19:17 - Dec 24 with 565 views | Chief |
| Swansea city a great club. (n/t) on 18:30 - Dec 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
While their remit might best be served by being involved in sale talks there was no obligation to include them as far as I know. They have no auditing role in the club. Clearly putting at least some of their own shares up for sale after 2015 would have insured their inclusion and best served their remit. |
Well there is a shareholding agreement from a legal standpoint, as well as the obvious moral obligation which you are too deluded to acknowledge.
Not sure how you can say it would have ensured their inclusion. Doesn't mean the yanks would have bid. As you keep telling us, the Americans were apparently willing to buy the trust's shares once the trust found out about the sale, but never it seems actually bid at the same rate as they bought the sellouts shares. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.