| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough 14:53 - Apr 12 with 2766 views | KeithHaynes |
Another one to add to the rumour mill, I would imagine he is two million plus though. |  |
| |  |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 22:24 - Apr 13 with 980 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 20:26 - Apr 13 by Chief |
- The trust was ready for mediation. Kaplan and Levein announced they would not be attending. Little use or clarity in people attending who can't possibly make concrete decisions.
- Well i can't read the mind of how a judge will rule before a case has stated but its a safe bet that if ruled that way, the bill would be issued to the defendants in case.
- Vincent Tan isn't being sued by Nantes, so technically he shouldn't be paying it. I don't know if he will end up doing so but as I've already explained that runs the risk of falling foul of FFP rules. Not sure about the short timescales, not sure why an installment process couldn't be set up. As I'm sure it will for Cardiff if they have to pay Nantes. And yes it could be catastrophic for their club as the defendant. Swansea City football club isn't the defendant in the trust's case.
- Well it would be counterintuitive because cutting costs, selling players will result in the club possibly being relegated even further, meaning there's even less of a chance they'll ever get their money back. Plus all such decisions would only lower the football club's revenue. Which is a separate pot from their own personal bank accounts. Unless you're suggesting they'll illegally siphon off club funds for their own use!?
- How does the trust offering to acquire shares equate to the selling shareholders offering them shares exactly? It doesn't matter if they laid on a lovely buffet in this meeting too. The sellouts didn't offer to sell the other shareholder their shares. No need to look beyond that irrefutable fact.
- Not even satan himself would be as blinkered as you on this topic.
Now go for a walk in waterfall country and enjoy another 3 points you oddball  |
Slipped into abuse again tut tut. It must be hard work 'policing' this site for alternative opinions outside the chosen accepted but dubious narrative.
If Cardiff cannot pay the Sala fee Tan will pay it. FFP is a year on years thing so just like Swansea they will end up selling Kieffer Moore just to stay on side to pay back Tan. Swansea will similarly with the Trust business will sell Cabango to get their hands on readies or a loan linked to the sale to pay back Levien and co. Things like 'directors loans' can be used and perfectly legal. The 2 year plan will become a 4 year plan.
Kaplan said the attendees could make concrete decsions. A handshake with them was a deal. The snobbish Trust did not want to mix with those below their rank perhaps?
When judge makes awards the timescale can be very short yet another thing you have not thought about. Yes ideeed you are not sure. This is why I am asking.
I drew the parallel as in both cases the owner will have to carry the can by default with the mess sorted out later by player sales, ticket price risess and job cuts. All legal all reasonable all sustainable.
All this grief what for?
I will tell you what for , to pay your lovely legal friends their huge cut. The Trust will only get the existing Championship price for their efforts. The Trust will get £13-£14m. It is probably worth around £12m now.
You will not accept a sudden £21m bill to the club owners will not have any affecton the club. This is plain bizarre. Of course they will use the club sustainably to see at least the legal part of the bill £8m or so paid back into their pockets. Of course this will not help the club just another issue like Covid to get past. That saw redundancies a downgrading of he academy and the sale of joe Rodon.
Issues of the alleged agreement is something I cannot comment on as I have not seen the agreement and was not in attendance.
For the sake of argument the Trust statement suggest in the course of discussions the Trust did make an offer for 4% as a goodwill gesture. They were presumably invited to make this proposal which was found not to match the US offer and it was subsequently rejected. This was before any share had been sold as I understand it. It is a subtle matter but could be interpreted like this in court. |  |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 07:27 - Apr 14 with 949 views | Chief |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 22:24 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Slipped into abuse again tut tut. It must be hard work 'policing' this site for alternative opinions outside the chosen accepted but dubious narrative.
If Cardiff cannot pay the Sala fee Tan will pay it. FFP is a year on years thing so just like Swansea they will end up selling Kieffer Moore just to stay on side to pay back Tan. Swansea will similarly with the Trust business will sell Cabango to get their hands on readies or a loan linked to the sale to pay back Levien and co. Things like 'directors loans' can be used and perfectly legal. The 2 year plan will become a 4 year plan.
Kaplan said the attendees could make concrete decsions. A handshake with them was a deal. The snobbish Trust did not want to mix with those below their rank perhaps?
When judge makes awards the timescale can be very short yet another thing you have not thought about. Yes ideeed you are not sure. This is why I am asking.
I drew the parallel as in both cases the owner will have to carry the can by default with the mess sorted out later by player sales, ticket price risess and job cuts. All legal all reasonable all sustainable.
All this grief what for?
I will tell you what for , to pay your lovely legal friends their huge cut. The Trust will only get the existing Championship price for their efforts. The Trust will get £13-£14m. It is probably worth around £12m now.
You will not accept a sudden £21m bill to the club owners will not have any affecton the club. This is plain bizarre. Of course they will use the club sustainably to see at least the legal part of the bill £8m or so paid back into their pockets. Of course this will not help the club just another issue like Covid to get past. That saw redundancies a downgrading of he academy and the sale of joe Rodon.
Issues of the alleged agreement is something I cannot comment on as I have not seen the agreement and was not in attendance.
For the sake of argument the Trust statement suggest in the course of discussions the Trust did make an offer for 4% as a goodwill gesture. They were presumably invited to make this proposal which was found not to match the US offer and it was subsequently rejected. This was before any share had been sold as I understand it. It is a subtle matter but could be interpreted like this in court. |
- So you are saying that the Americans who are doing such a great job currently and whom you want running the club will siphon off club funds for their own personal use then? Haven't you been saying these are 'benevolent' owners?
- So currently we have to assume the American consortium has not received back any of their £70mil ish initial outlay. There's been no evidence of taking funds out of the club in the accounts no have they taken no dividends yet. They've also put in another 5mill loan, so there's 75mill. So 5 years down the line, no return yet. This action COULD see their outlay reach 96mill (although they'll own more of the club potentially). And you believe in that event, they'll deliberately weaken their asset, reducing its value even further. How will they ever hope to get their 96mill back then? The club isn't going to get bought for that as a league 1 or lower level championship entity for anything resembling that figure. And those level clubs aren't going to produce profits to provide dividends (that other shareholders such as HJ and MM would get too) to service a 96million shortfall. If they do make it profitable how much of a dividend would they plan to take!? Just doesn't make sense to harm the club itself when you look a little deeper does it? Unless you're suggesting large scale embezzlement of some variety.
- It perfectly reasonable to expect that the people you are taking proceedings against attend mediation. And no the replacements can never with certainty make fast concrete decisions on behalf of others.
- Are you sure the judge will rule that a timescale for payment will be 'very short' then? No of course not. We'll have to wait and see.
- Well no its not reasonable because wages of staff employed by Swansea City aren't paid for out of the personal bank account of Kaplan and Levein. So making cuts will just harm the club. You seem to be unable to differentiate between the two completely separate entities.
- Yawn, yes Resolven the trust are taking purely so lawyers can have a payday. Have you lost the plot?
- Covid saw a reduction in the football club's income due to fans not attending games etc. The trusts action isn't affecting the club's income at all.
- Haha back to ignoring the shareholders agreement. In your last post you literally commented on it.
- Why do you assume they were invited to bid? There's no evidence to suggest that. It may have been before any share sale legally went through but by all accounts it was very far into the process and was too late. The sellout lawyers may play on this potential nuance but its seems a desperate tenuous attempt. And one which HJ can't have been too confident in relying on - hence his attempts to have the agreement annulled.
- you brushed passed a point i made earlier - there are reports out there that the Americans were not aware of the shareholders agreement when they bought the club. Ignorance is no excuse in the law, but its possible I'd say to then go after the sellouts who potentially could then have sold them shares under false pretences for not disclosing such information..... [Post edited 14 Apr 2021 8:25]
|  |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:03 - Apr 14 with 903 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 07:27 - Apr 14 by Chief |
- So you are saying that the Americans who are doing such a great job currently and whom you want running the club will siphon off club funds for their own personal use then? Haven't you been saying these are 'benevolent' owners?
- So currently we have to assume the American consortium has not received back any of their £70mil ish initial outlay. There's been no evidence of taking funds out of the club in the accounts no have they taken no dividends yet. They've also put in another 5mill loan, so there's 75mill. So 5 years down the line, no return yet. This action COULD see their outlay reach 96mill (although they'll own more of the club potentially). And you believe in that event, they'll deliberately weaken their asset, reducing its value even further. How will they ever hope to get their 96mill back then? The club isn't going to get bought for that as a league 1 or lower level championship entity for anything resembling that figure. And those level clubs aren't going to produce profits to provide dividends (that other shareholders such as HJ and MM would get too) to service a 96million shortfall. If they do make it profitable how much of a dividend would they plan to take!? Just doesn't make sense to harm the club itself when you look a little deeper does it? Unless you're suggesting large scale embezzlement of some variety.
- It perfectly reasonable to expect that the people you are taking proceedings against attend mediation. And no the replacements can never with certainty make fast concrete decisions on behalf of others.
- Are you sure the judge will rule that a timescale for payment will be 'very short' then? No of course not. We'll have to wait and see.
- Well no its not reasonable because wages of staff employed by Swansea City aren't paid for out of the personal bank account of Kaplan and Levein. So making cuts will just harm the club. You seem to be unable to differentiate between the two completely separate entities.
- Yawn, yes Resolven the trust are taking purely so lawyers can have a payday. Have you lost the plot?
- Covid saw a reduction in the football club's income due to fans not attending games etc. The trusts action isn't affecting the club's income at all.
- Haha back to ignoring the shareholders agreement. In your last post you literally commented on it.
- Why do you assume they were invited to bid? There's no evidence to suggest that. It may have been before any share sale legally went through but by all accounts it was very far into the process and was too late. The sellout lawyers may play on this potential nuance but its seems a desperate tenuous attempt. And one which HJ can't have been too confident in relying on - hence his attempts to have the agreement annulled.
- you brushed passed a point i made earlier - there are reports out there that the Americans were not aware of the shareholders agreement when they bought the club. Ignorance is no excuse in the law, but its possible I'd say to then go after the sellouts who potentially could then have sold them shares under false pretences for not disclosing such information..... [Post edited 14 Apr 2021 8:25]
|
Discussions with everything out in the open were held 4 month before the sale. Any issues the Trust had were presumably raised then. I see no reason to assume anything discussed was "too late". This is your dubious intepretation. Sunderland was reportedly sold in two weeks.
The SCST offer to buy 4% for £0 was "too low" not "too late" I suggest. Had the SCST had £4m or access to £4m then they could have bought the shares. Had the sellers refused to sell it to them at that price then surely they would have had a case if the agreement was valid and as you describe. This might admittedly have put off the US buyers. Sadly for the Trust, their 25% ownership would require them to find exceptional partners ready to accept the Trusts veto. The Trust s recent record of a lack of consensual work highlighted in the unhelpful 2015 comments makes it highly unlikely for them to find new partners.
The US owners if lumbered with unexpected costs will clearly endeavour to get those costs back. This is obvious. The club is now, if not promoted heading into a low cost small profit era hopefully with a top drawer academy. These cost will be returned by fully legal means such a CLN interest, directors loans and dividends or special dividends. The words "siphoning" and "embezzlement" are disrespectfull to the management group. You can raise it personally with Mr Winter in the zoom forum if you want to.
Trying to reduce of the fan base age by increasing season ticket fees for the older SCST regulars while reducing csots for younger fans is aparticular favourite idea of mine I hope they will take up.
As I understand it they have bought the club for £69m and with Silverstein added another £10m to the pot. This is a total of £79m. The CLN gives them £0.5m interest. The gives an average return of 0.6%. Not great but better than anything in the bank at present. The SCST are getting 0.15% or so I estimated from the accounts. A £1m shareholder would get a £6000 annual payment. A little something to keep them sweet.
In general their investment is for growth not income. Swansea city was always a growth stock. A return and sale in the PL will generate huge profits for them if hey can find an Asian or US buyer.
I can see no reason why the SCST is going down a failed route of conflict and dubious legal macinations when the future looks so good and they still hold 21%. Big coorperation is the route to big cash. Inflation growth is clearly far greater then any dilution decline. | |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:11 - Apr 14 with 901 views | raynor94 |
Surely it's time for Resloven and Chief to take their arguments to pm, they hijack every thread, and ruin it, you spend most of your time scrolling through petty( no pun intended) arguments on every post. |  |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:38 - Apr 14 with 891 views | Chief |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:03 - Apr 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Discussions with everything out in the open were held 4 month before the sale. Any issues the Trust had were presumably raised then. I see no reason to assume anything discussed was "too late". This is your dubious intepretation. Sunderland was reportedly sold in two weeks.
The SCST offer to buy 4% for £0 was "too low" not "too late" I suggest. Had the SCST had £4m or access to £4m then they could have bought the shares. Had the sellers refused to sell it to them at that price then surely they would have had a case if the agreement was valid and as you describe. This might admittedly have put off the US buyers. Sadly for the Trust, their 25% ownership would require them to find exceptional partners ready to accept the Trusts veto. The Trust s recent record of a lack of consensual work highlighted in the unhelpful 2015 comments makes it highly unlikely for them to find new partners.
The US owners if lumbered with unexpected costs will clearly endeavour to get those costs back. This is obvious. The club is now, if not promoted heading into a low cost small profit era hopefully with a top drawer academy. These cost will be returned by fully legal means such a CLN interest, directors loans and dividends or special dividends. The words "siphoning" and "embezzlement" are disrespectfull to the management group. You can raise it personally with Mr Winter in the zoom forum if you want to.
Trying to reduce of the fan base age by increasing season ticket fees for the older SCST regulars while reducing csots for younger fans is aparticular favourite idea of mine I hope they will take up.
As I understand it they have bought the club for £69m and with Silverstein added another £10m to the pot. This is a total of £79m. The CLN gives them £0.5m interest. The gives an average return of 0.6%. Not great but better than anything in the bank at present. The SCST are getting 0.15% or so I estimated from the accounts. A £1m shareholder would get a £6000 annual payment. A little something to keep them sweet.
In general their investment is for growth not income. Swansea city was always a growth stock. A return and sale in the PL will generate huge profits for them if hey can find an Asian or US buyer.
I can see no reason why the SCST is going down a failed route of conflict and dubious legal macinations when the future looks so good and they still hold 21%. Big coorperation is the route to big cash. Inflation growth is clearly far greater then any dilution decline. |
- Potentially there was time. However there is no testimony evidence from any source stating the sellouts did fulfill their obligation by offering to sell their shares at any point, not before they started negotiations to sell nor deep into it by the time the trust found out.
- Don't disagree with most of paragraph 2 really apart the random dig at the end. But the fact remains, late bid, low bid. It should have been the opposite way around, so it's not really relevant. Not sure of the wording of the agreement exactly but someone said shareholders should have been offered to purchase shares if the other shareholder was considering selling. Well months and months of negotiations with a party is slightly more than just considering selling so it appears to fail on that aspect too.
- Well you outline to me then without using those (perfectly apt) words exactly how the Americans will remove money from the club to pay their own personal bills please. These small dividends you speak of, how long will that take the consortium to get their money back doing that? And of course the more the club is weakened by funds being taken from the club, the less income there'll be. A vicious cycle. CLN interest? That's already in place now. For them to get more they'd have to put in more money wouldn't they!?
And these potential bills are not (well certainly shouldn't be) 'unexpected. They've always known this was a possibility and if they went into previous negotiations with the trust in good faith should already have the money ready. You don't think they'd just assume it had gone away do you?
- No relevance on the season ticket thing.
- What's your point in the next paragraph? That shareholders will be happy receiving 0.6% of their initial outlay? Which we don't know when they'll receive it back yet and without thus far receiving anything in the years since they bought in?
- Indeed but how are we going to reach a premier league if the club's majority share holders decide to sabotage attempts to do that then? Surely the only way they're going to get their money back is by selling up a Premier League club.
- No you wouldn't see why, you are too blinkered to. What's so dubious exactly? A QC wouldn't say a dubious case was a strong one. The trust has attempted cooperation repeatedly. Even the Americans latest words don't seem to have been followed through. | |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 15:00 - Apr 14 with 825 views | onehunglow |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:03 - Apr 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Discussions with everything out in the open were held 4 month before the sale. Any issues the Trust had were presumably raised then. I see no reason to assume anything discussed was "too late". This is your dubious intepretation. Sunderland was reportedly sold in two weeks.
The SCST offer to buy 4% for £0 was "too low" not "too late" I suggest. Had the SCST had £4m or access to £4m then they could have bought the shares. Had the sellers refused to sell it to them at that price then surely they would have had a case if the agreement was valid and as you describe. This might admittedly have put off the US buyers. Sadly for the Trust, their 25% ownership would require them to find exceptional partners ready to accept the Trusts veto. The Trust s recent record of a lack of consensual work highlighted in the unhelpful 2015 comments makes it highly unlikely for them to find new partners.
The US owners if lumbered with unexpected costs will clearly endeavour to get those costs back. This is obvious. The club is now, if not promoted heading into a low cost small profit era hopefully with a top drawer academy. These cost will be returned by fully legal means such a CLN interest, directors loans and dividends or special dividends. The words "siphoning" and "embezzlement" are disrespectfull to the management group. You can raise it personally with Mr Winter in the zoom forum if you want to.
Trying to reduce of the fan base age by increasing season ticket fees for the older SCST regulars while reducing csots for younger fans is aparticular favourite idea of mine I hope they will take up.
As I understand it they have bought the club for £69m and with Silverstein added another £10m to the pot. This is a total of £79m. The CLN gives them £0.5m interest. The gives an average return of 0.6%. Not great but better than anything in the bank at present. The SCST are getting 0.15% or so I estimated from the accounts. A £1m shareholder would get a £6000 annual payment. A little something to keep them sweet.
In general their investment is for growth not income. Swansea city was always a growth stock. A return and sale in the PL will generate huge profits for them if hey can find an Asian or US buyer.
I can see no reason why the SCST is going down a failed route of conflict and dubious legal macinations when the future looks so good and they still hold 21%. Big coorperation is the route to big cash. Inflation growth is clearly far greater then any dilution decline. |
And you’re not Leigh |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 16:38 - Apr 14 with 839 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 15:00 - Apr 14 by onehunglow |
And you’re not Leigh |
The thread was diverted by someone declaring that the unrelated Sala case for Cardiff was "make or break" for Cardiff.
I then compared the financial problems Cardiff had were comparable to the financial problems Swansea city would face if the SCST pushed the button only greater.
If Cardiff was "make or break" Swansea fans should understand Swansea s position would be worse with a bigger liabilty and poorer owners. Then The Chief got invloved with his party line dubious naarative and bingo thread diverted.
I am not Liegh or Leighs brother (if he has a brother). It is possibly feasible I just think like he does. History as Swansea city will treat him kindly. [Post edited 14 Apr 2021 16:42]
| |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 16:43 - Apr 14 with 838 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:11 - Apr 14 by raynor94 |
Surely it's time for Resloven and Chief to take their arguments to pm, they hijack every thread, and ruin it, you spend most of your time scrolling through petty( no pun intended) arguments on every post. |
It’s unbearable. Mr Logic from Viz is baiting Chief. Chief should just put him on ignore |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 16:47 - Apr 14 with 830 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 16:43 - Apr 14 by Brynmill_Jack |
It’s unbearable. Mr Logic from Viz is baiting Chief. Chief should just put him on ignore |
Kindly Brymill, a much better version of the "thread diversion genre" of posts is seen with the splendid thread "Cabango sent home".
Such is the beauty of this forum is that is now a discusions of "socialsim and it role in the fall of Franco in Spain 1936 -1974".
No one complains about such a brutal switch. [Post edited 14 Apr 2021 16:49]
| |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 18:12 - Apr 14 with 818 views | Chief |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 16:38 - Apr 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The thread was diverted by someone declaring that the unrelated Sala case for Cardiff was "make or break" for Cardiff.
I then compared the financial problems Cardiff had were comparable to the financial problems Swansea city would face if the SCST pushed the button only greater.
If Cardiff was "make or break" Swansea fans should understand Swansea s position would be worse with a bigger liabilty and poorer owners. Then The Chief got invloved with his party line dubious naarative and bingo thread diverted.
I am not Liegh or Leighs brother (if he has a brother). It is possibly feasible I just think like he does. History as Swansea city will treat him kindly. [Post edited 14 Apr 2021 16:42]
|
So you do admit it was you who diverted onto the supporters trust yet again then?
Just so there's no ambiguity:
Nantes are taking action against Cardiff City Football Club,
NOT Vincent Tan.
Swansea City Supporters Trust are taking action against the likes of Kaplan, Levein, Jenkins, Dineen, etc,
NOT Swansea City football Club.
Enough said. [Post edited 14 Apr 2021 18:18]
| |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 23:04 - Apr 14 with 725 views | raynor94 |
It's groundhog day again, surely time to call a halt to this. | |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 23:49 - Apr 14 with 711 views | Fireboy2 |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 23:04 - Apr 14 by raynor94 |
It's groundhog day again, surely time to call a halt to this. |
Alas rayns, it is the same shit, different day mate. |  | | |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 05:15 - Apr 15 with 685 views | Brynmill_Jack |
If everyone put this apologist on ignore (especially chief) he’d soon sod off | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 06:52 - Apr 15 with 676 views | Chief |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 22:49 - Apr 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Yes you do not understand that hitting the owners with a £21m bill will certainly affect the club. Completely deluded I am afraid like many members of the Trust.
In Cardiff's case Tan will pay the bill and the club will sell a player or two and pay him back plus interest. There will be no choice. Cardiff do not have £15m knocking around the office. They may only have a few months to cough up. Tan will pay up to avoid the club's bankruptcy.
In Swansea case Levien's group and others will pay the excess part of the bill (the legal fees
part £8m) and the club will sell a player and pay them back. (as a loan, dividend, special divident some convertible loan deal, something of this nature). Loaning money from the business is called a 'Directors loan'. There are a whole range of other mechanism no doubt all perfectly legal. They will not want to give more bad news to the 28.
The £12m part of the bill is their current value so the 28 perhaps can buy them at market price or they could find new buyers. Silversten might be interested at the right price. They will be buying these shares 40% cheaper than in 2016. They will be informed of the Burnley sale price which was twice the 2016 price.
In both cases the club will suffer short term harm. This is clearly regretible but the US people are committed to Swansea having a sustainable way of working. Excess costs arising from the club will be paid for by the club. That is the way they think. |
Everything you've said there has been addressed ad nauseum now for how inaccurate and illogical it is.
So while i do enjoy taking you to task lets just wait and see how it all pans out. For the sake of the other forum users. | |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:05 - Apr 15 with 634 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 23:49 - Apr 14 by Fireboy2 |
Alas rayns, it is the same shit, different day mate. |
Actially debating something that matters...
My understanding is that 'your Trust' is proposing to give away 7-8% of its 21% holding to ambulance chasers in fees while harming the club.
You can get one with important stuff like "which shirt was your favourite since 1980?. Mine was the Gulf Shirt with the yellow stripes". Like I said the similarities with the Womens Institute is uncanny. | |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:10 - Apr 15 with 630 views | Chief |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:05 - Apr 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Actially debating something that matters...
My understanding is that 'your Trust' is proposing to give away 7-8% of its 21% holding to ambulance chasers in fees while harming the club.
You can get one with important stuff like "which shirt was your favourite since 1980?. Mine was the Gulf Shirt with the yellow stripes". Like I said the similarities with the Womens Institute is uncanny. |
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT**** | |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:11 - Apr 15 with 629 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:10 - Apr 15 by Chief |
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT**** |
Oops the Policeman has shown up. | |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:21 - Apr 15 with 625 views | Chief |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:11 - Apr 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Oops the Policeman has shown up. |
Please do not step out of line again.
On your way.
 | |
| |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 21:49 - Apr 16 with 547 views | thornabyswan |
| Jonson Clarke-Harris At Peterborough on 14:05 - Apr 15 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Actially debating something that matters...
My understanding is that 'your Trust' is proposing to give away 7-8% of its 21% holding to ambulance chasers in fees while harming the club.
You can get one with important stuff like "which shirt was your favourite since 1980?. Mine was the Gulf Shirt with the yellow stripes". Like I said the similarities with the Womens Institute is uncanny. |
Why has a thread about what looks like a decent player turned into a trust thread.
Just post trust stuff on trust threads then those who are interested will read it.
No offence intended. | |
| |
| |
) towards the trust or their legal action. All i do is correct their inaccuracies and warped viewpoint. 
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.