| United v Liverpool. Protest 16:59 - May 2 with 2963 views | onehunglow |
Fans eh.
Going about it the wrong way .Again. |  |
| |  |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 07:56 - May 3 with 718 views | Chief |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 01:32 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
What have the SCST done since 2002?
How much money do they have to fullfill their mandate. £880k Next to nothing.
Ayew's wages for 11 weeks. Luckily Uncle Sam is looking after the books not them. |
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT**** |  |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 07:58 - May 3 with 718 views | Thornburyswan |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 18:34 - May 2 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I remember seeing and hearing the majority of the East Stand boo, verbally abuse and criticise a lone man putting up a "Jenkins Out" banner in the Liberty Stadium during one match. Stewards quickly rushed to him, took it down and escorted him out to cheers from the East Stand.
It was around the time I and a few others would receive vile abuse on this forum for expressing similar views, which of course soon later became the majority opinion and I was no longer accused of "having an agenda".
Those Manchester United supporters that protested peacefully put the Swansea City supporters to shame. [Post edited 2 May 2021 20:35]
|
Unfortunately Dwight & as always it was the ‘minority’ that chose to damage property & fight with the police that loses them the debate. | | | |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 08:13 - May 3 with 703 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 18:34 - May 2 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I remember seeing and hearing the majority of the East Stand boo, verbally abuse and criticise a lone man putting up a "Jenkins Out" banner in the Liberty Stadium during one match. Stewards quickly rushed to him, took it down and escorted him out to cheers from the East Stand.
It was around the time I and a few others would receive vile abuse on this forum for expressing similar views, which of course soon later became the majority opinion and I was no longer accused of "having an agenda".
Those Manchester United supporters that protested peacefully put the Swansea City supporters to shame. [Post edited 2 May 2021 20:35]
|
To be honest, the chants of “we love our chairman” during Monks season were absolutely sickening, said so at the time.
Dwight is 100% right in saying people who questioned chairman at that time were shot down in flames, the same people now despise the bloke. |  | | |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 08:43 - May 3 with 685 views | builthjack |
This could be us if we get to the PL. Who knows. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 09:54 - May 3 with 648 views | 1983 |
The few they interviewed on the news last night were brilliant
2 bus w@nkers that were excited to be outside and some asian bloke in a grey sheepskin jacket looking like he was on his way home from the night before still off it lol |  |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 10:43 - May 3 with 622 views | onehunglow |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 08:13 - May 3 by 34dfgdf54 |
To be honest, the chants of “we love our chairman” during Monks season were absolutely sickening, said so at the time.
Dwight is 100% right in saying people who questioned chairman at that time were shot down in flames, the same people now despise the bloke. |
And it shows NO fan is right or wrong ,only a simple fan.
Football and sport make mugs out of us ALL | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 11:02 - May 3 with 595 views | KeithHaynes |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 07:58 - May 3 by Thornburyswan |
Unfortunately Dwight & as always it was the ‘minority’ that chose to damage property & fight with the police that loses them the debate. |
In every protest in every generation since I and everyone else can remember.
And still folk don’t get it. |  |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 11:09 - May 3 with 586 views | Thornburyswan |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 11:02 - May 3 by KeithHaynes |
In every protest in every generation since I and everyone else can remember.
And still folk don’t get it. |
You’re right Keith & whilst I’m sure most of them did not set out with that intention & then got sucked into it you simply cannot defend or justify it. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 11:52 - May 3 with 562 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 08:13 - May 3 by 34dfgdf54 |
To be honest, the chants of “we love our chairman” during Monks season were absolutely sickening, said so at the time.
Dwight is 100% right in saying people who questioned chairman at that time were shot down in flames, the same people now despise the bloke. |
DYSS is entirely wrong back then and now. HJ and co. is the exact opposite of the Glazers.
a) HJ and his chums generously allowed the fans to purchase the club at rock bottom. Glazers bought a strong going concern.
b) HJ and co generally took no money out of the club other than wages and expenses. The Glazers are taking huge dividends.
c) HJ and co when they did make a profit shared it with the SCST. The Glazers will not allow this.
d) HJ and co did not buy the club with debt and get the club to pay it back. Glazers did this.
e) HJ and co did not load the club with debt. This occured in a desperate effort to stay in the PL but this is under control.
f) HJ and Co reinvested all profits into infrastructure growing the value of the club. This increased the value of the club x100 to the benefit of the SCST / fans. The Glazer have taken dividends.
g) HJ and co improved the teams position for 92nd to top 30 with a high point of 6th. Top 20 for 7 season. Glazers have seen a decline in status and results.
h) HJ and co lived in Swansea and were in contact with the fans. Glazers are not present and avoid the fans.
i) When he came to sell up part of his shares he found good cash buyers and introduced them to the SCST (twice). It was upto to them to make a deal but they were not able to do it due to activist resistence.
j) HJ and co have appointed a string of brilliant managers Flynn Martinez Sousa Rodgers Guidolin and the latest Potter (Pep says is the best English manager) all playing the game beautifully. Glazers have appointed faded dour managers who player poor football.
DWSS was wrong on just about any aspect he wants to talk about. The fans in the SCST will follow populist media types with political Sunday school moralist rhetoric rather than achievers sadly. [Post edited 3 May 2021 12:01]
|  |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 12:15 - May 3 with 537 views | onehunglow |
There we are then .That s us told | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 12:41 - May 3 with 526 views | Chief |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 11:52 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
DYSS is entirely wrong back then and now. HJ and co. is the exact opposite of the Glazers.
a) HJ and his chums generously allowed the fans to purchase the club at rock bottom. Glazers bought a strong going concern.
b) HJ and co generally took no money out of the club other than wages and expenses. The Glazers are taking huge dividends.
c) HJ and co when they did make a profit shared it with the SCST. The Glazers will not allow this.
d) HJ and co did not buy the club with debt and get the club to pay it back. Glazers did this.
e) HJ and co did not load the club with debt. This occured in a desperate effort to stay in the PL but this is under control.
f) HJ and Co reinvested all profits into infrastructure growing the value of the club. This increased the value of the club x100 to the benefit of the SCST / fans. The Glazer have taken dividends.
g) HJ and co improved the teams position for 92nd to top 30 with a high point of 6th. Top 20 for 7 season. Glazers have seen a decline in status and results.
h) HJ and co lived in Swansea and were in contact with the fans. Glazers are not present and avoid the fans.
i) When he came to sell up part of his shares he found good cash buyers and introduced them to the SCST (twice). It was upto to them to make a deal but they were not able to do it due to activist resistence.
j) HJ and co have appointed a string of brilliant managers Flynn Martinez Sousa Rodgers Guidolin and the latest Potter (Pep says is the best English manager) all playing the game beautifully. Glazers have appointed faded dour managers who player poor football.
DWSS was wrong on just about any aspect he wants to talk about. The fans in the SCST will follow populist media types with political Sunday school moralist rhetoric rather than achievers sadly. [Post edited 3 May 2021 12:01]
|
a) you could say the trust generously let HJ buy in. Its not like before they bought their shares that Huw etc had any particular power over the other shareholders. They were all equals, just fellow shareholders. You make it out like it was some gracious act. It's possible huw etc (who weren't the wealthiest back then) were actually happy to have another shareholder in the trust to spread the risk (and it was risky back then).
b) Dividends were taken. Few shady contracts too.
f) As above not all profits did go back in.
I) They did the opposite, they actively worked to keep the Americans away from the trust. Your vision that they acted as some sort of broker is completely false.
Still peddling your convenient fantasy i see ae profiled in the last paragraph. | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 12:47 - May 3 with 521 views | Chief |
Happy to help again.
And of course it should be pointed out that the success the club experienced was with HJ MM on a board alongside the trust's director and their board. They were a good team overall. | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 13:14 - May 3 with 514 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 12:41 - May 3 by Chief |
a) you could say the trust generously let HJ buy in. Its not like before they bought their shares that Huw etc had any particular power over the other shareholders. They were all equals, just fellow shareholders. You make it out like it was some gracious act. It's possible huw etc (who weren't the wealthiest back then) were actually happy to have another shareholder in the trust to spread the risk (and it was risky back then).
b) Dividends were taken. Few shady contracts too.
f) As above not all profits did go back in.
I) They did the opposite, they actively worked to keep the Americans away from the trust. Your vision that they acted as some sort of broker is completely false.
Still peddling your convenient fantasy i see ae profiled in the last paragraph. |
It was a gracious act. There is a fellow on that 'other site' that want government action to allow fans to buy in his piece this morning. It was not necessary at Swansea. There is a danger of course that these groups, struggling to find volunteers, get taken over by activist thinking. This has actually happened.
The "local business" interests that you discount allowed them to buy in and some local business intersts even gave them cash upto £20,000. A well know insurer rom Neath. the SCST could have turned that into £2m .
Dividends were taken and shared with the fans. The SCST are using this money to give to well healed ambulance chasers looking for a fast buck.
Perhaps you could expand on shadey contracts? I know of none. The construction contracts were done using 'in house' skills on budget and on time as far as i know and all in agreement with the SCST. No contractors claims no delays no contactors going off and doing something else. No different from your brother in law contractor fixing your roof.
Profit went into he business. The club to avoid tax did not post profits and spent it on players the academy and infrastructure. SCST was a "growth" stock. The people in it wanted to grow the busness not take profits. The SCST did not seem to understand this and i recall reading they were frutrated that the dividends were so low. They want it to be a "income" stock. That mean no investment, no growth and no trophies.
You seem terrified of the big world and claim the SCST shares will be and are "unsellible". HJ and co sorted this problem out for the SCST and introduced them to THREE sets of US cash rich investors / buyers. Moores and co, Kaplan and co and Silverstein. SCST when the want to sell talk to a QC in London. He is not interested in football. He took their money and told them only go to court as a "last resort".
Kerching "I want the cash in my account by Thurday". QC L12.
Business people know that making money in a place like Swansea is through cooperation and mutually benefitcal dealings It is not going to court. The SCST made some big mistakes and need to learn from it. Lack of networking and a nonsense strategy. The future is very promising. Burnley was sold for £200m. [Post edited 3 May 2021 13:21]
| |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 14:30 - May 3 with 497 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 11:52 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
DYSS is entirely wrong back then and now. HJ and co. is the exact opposite of the Glazers.
a) HJ and his chums generously allowed the fans to purchase the club at rock bottom. Glazers bought a strong going concern.
b) HJ and co generally took no money out of the club other than wages and expenses. The Glazers are taking huge dividends.
c) HJ and co when they did make a profit shared it with the SCST. The Glazers will not allow this.
d) HJ and co did not buy the club with debt and get the club to pay it back. Glazers did this.
e) HJ and co did not load the club with debt. This occured in a desperate effort to stay in the PL but this is under control.
f) HJ and Co reinvested all profits into infrastructure growing the value of the club. This increased the value of the club x100 to the benefit of the SCST / fans. The Glazer have taken dividends.
g) HJ and co improved the teams position for 92nd to top 30 with a high point of 6th. Top 20 for 7 season. Glazers have seen a decline in status and results.
h) HJ and co lived in Swansea and were in contact with the fans. Glazers are not present and avoid the fans.
i) When he came to sell up part of his shares he found good cash buyers and introduced them to the SCST (twice). It was upto to them to make a deal but they were not able to do it due to activist resistence.
j) HJ and co have appointed a string of brilliant managers Flynn Martinez Sousa Rodgers Guidolin and the latest Potter (Pep says is the best English manager) all playing the game beautifully. Glazers have appointed faded dour managers who player poor football.
DWSS was wrong on just about any aspect he wants to talk about. The fans in the SCST will follow populist media types with political Sunday school moralist rhetoric rather than achievers sadly. [Post edited 3 May 2021 12:01]
|
You're misinformed if you think I am a supporter of the Swansea City Supporters Trust.
I think they, and especially their long-standing leader failed in their duties the one time they were required to do anything other than beg a few players to go bowling.
Manipulating their dumb members into voting to make a "deal" with the same people that just screwed them over was one of the most idiotic and truly embarrassing actions in the history of this club.
Anyway, let's hope it continues to drag on as we know Huw has a history of choosing poor legal representation and I'm sure those legal costs are ever rising.. |  |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 15:21 - May 3 with 466 views | Chief |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 13:14 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It was a gracious act. There is a fellow on that 'other site' that want government action to allow fans to buy in his piece this morning. It was not necessary at Swansea. There is a danger of course that these groups, struggling to find volunteers, get taken over by activist thinking. This has actually happened.
The "local business" interests that you discount allowed them to buy in and some local business intersts even gave them cash upto £20,000. A well know insurer rom Neath. the SCST could have turned that into £2m .
Dividends were taken and shared with the fans. The SCST are using this money to give to well healed ambulance chasers looking for a fast buck.
Perhaps you could expand on shadey contracts? I know of none. The construction contracts were done using 'in house' skills on budget and on time as far as i know and all in agreement with the SCST. No contractors claims no delays no contactors going off and doing something else. No different from your brother in law contractor fixing your roof.
Profit went into he business. The club to avoid tax did not post profits and spent it on players the academy and infrastructure. SCST was a "growth" stock. The people in it wanted to grow the busness not take profits. The SCST did not seem to understand this and i recall reading they were frutrated that the dividends were so low. They want it to be a "income" stock. That mean no investment, no growth and no trophies.
You seem terrified of the big world and claim the SCST shares will be and are "unsellible". HJ and co sorted this problem out for the SCST and introduced them to THREE sets of US cash rich investors / buyers. Moores and co, Kaplan and co and Silverstein. SCST when the want to sell talk to a QC in London. He is not interested in football. He took their money and told them only go to court as a "last resort".
Kerching "I want the cash in my account by Thurday". QC L12.
Business people know that making money in a place like Swansea is through cooperation and mutually benefitcal dealings It is not going to court. The SCST made some big mistakes and need to learn from it. Lack of networking and a nonsense strategy. The future is very promising. Burnley was sold for £200m. [Post edited 3 May 2021 13:21]
|
- the trust had just as much right to buy shares as Huw and the rest. Not gracious at all.
- what have i discounted!? What local business interests gave them 20k?
- Good, glad you've corrected your error in saying HJ took nothing out. Huw will presumably also be taking legal advice and paying for it.
- Other posters will know more about this than me, but there have been allegations regarding a lack of a transparent tender process for some of the building work carried out for the academy. The which was carried out a company owned by some of the shareholders.
- Not sure what you're talking about there. Or the trust moaning about low dividends. That's just a lie isn't it? Some profit was obviously paid out to shareholders as dividends.
- False. The Americans are on camera confirming the plot to keep the trust in the dark so you thinking they acted as a facilitator is deluded beyond belief.
- being deliberately ignorant as to the QCs words again i see. What did they regarding the strength of the case?
Apologies for contributing to the derailing of this thread but we mustn't let these myths to go unchecked. | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 15:33 - May 3 with 455 views | jasper_T |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 07:58 - May 3 by Thornburyswan |
Unfortunately Dwight & as always it was the ‘minority’ that chose to damage property & fight with the police that loses them the debate. |
The Glazers can afford to replace a few smashed windows with the money they rinse from the club and community. [Post edited 3 May 2021 15:34]
| | | |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 15:51 - May 3 with 443 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 15:21 - May 3 by Chief |
- the trust had just as much right to buy shares as Huw and the rest. Not gracious at all.
- what have i discounted!? What local business interests gave them 20k?
- Good, glad you've corrected your error in saying HJ took nothing out. Huw will presumably also be taking legal advice and paying for it.
- Other posters will know more about this than me, but there have been allegations regarding a lack of a transparent tender process for some of the building work carried out for the academy. The which was carried out a company owned by some of the shareholders.
- Not sure what you're talking about there. Or the trust moaning about low dividends. That's just a lie isn't it? Some profit was obviously paid out to shareholders as dividends.
- False. The Americans are on camera confirming the plot to keep the trust in the dark so you thinking they acted as a facilitator is deluded beyond belief.
- being deliberately ignorant as to the QCs words again i see. What did they regarding the strength of the case?
Apologies for contributing to the derailing of this thread but we mustn't let these myths to go unchecked. |
The fans own 20% + of Swansea city because the other shareholders wanted it to happen. People who were directors of the club were instumental in it formation and predicatably unloved today. They must regret that call. The US owners of Wrexham have learned from the Swansea example and cut out the Wrexham Trust completely.
A slight error by me it was £10k not £20k as I have just checked. You can check too. Some homework to fill in the massive gaps in your knowledge.
So you make accusations of 'shadey dealings' but do not seem to clear of the facts and refer to others. Poor in my opinion. Swansea city is not the council. The work was done 'in house' at terms agreed by the board. That means things can be done quickly and efficently. It was all done with the agreement of the SCST director presumably.
I report seeing comments about the SCST complaining about low dividends. It is not a lie I saw the comments.
The SCST were informed of the sale in good time. They had arranged their affairs such that they were not able to sell even if they wanted to. They had no mandate. They knew buyers were interested but stated "their shares were not for sale" in 2015. They presumably chose not to consult the members.
Getting a mandate actually took over 12 months from recollection. When they did have a mandate they did not like the terms which the buyer said was superior to that given to the other sellers and could not cut a deal. It is fair to say there was significant opposition to a sale from members. [Post edited 3 May 2021 15:59]
| |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 16:19 - May 3 with 431 views | Chief |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 15:51 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The fans own 20% + of Swansea city because the other shareholders wanted it to happen. People who were directors of the club were instumental in it formation and predicatably unloved today. They must regret that call. The US owners of Wrexham have learned from the Swansea example and cut out the Wrexham Trust completely.
A slight error by me it was £10k not £20k as I have just checked. You can check too. Some homework to fill in the massive gaps in your knowledge.
So you make accusations of 'shadey dealings' but do not seem to clear of the facts and refer to others. Poor in my opinion. Swansea city is not the council. The work was done 'in house' at terms agreed by the board. That means things can be done quickly and efficently. It was all done with the agreement of the SCST director presumably.
I report seeing comments about the SCST complaining about low dividends. It is not a lie I saw the comments.
The SCST were informed of the sale in good time. They had arranged their affairs such that they were not able to sell even if they wanted to. They had no mandate. They knew buyers were interested but stated "their shares were not for sale" in 2015. They presumably chose not to consult the members.
Getting a mandate actually took over 12 months from recollection. When they did have a mandate they did not like the terms which the buyer said was superior to that given to the other sellers and could not cut a deal. It is fair to say there was significant opposition to a sale from members. [Post edited 3 May 2021 15:59]
|
- you've made that up. The trust had just as much right to buy shares as the others. They actively campaigned to get rid of Petty before the likes of Katzen paid in. But yes it is sad they're unloved today but they've got no one to blame but themselves. Again, any evidence whatsoever that Wrexhams owner have 'learnt' from Swansea or have you just made that up too?
- well you've checked, why not give us more details of what you are referring to and of what relevance that is?
- Just saying there were allegations. That's all.
- Unfortunately without evidence it's very difficult to believe you because we know you will literally twist anything and everything against the trust so it's easy to discount that random comment.
- False, if the trust had been informed from the start as they should have been maybe they could have got that mandate. You've contradicted yourself there. Why did the Americans confirm the trust were excluded then? On camera? No, the sellers guessed the trust's intentions based on the past, not the present or future situation. It could prove a costly mistake for them. | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 17:24 - May 3 with 401 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 16:19 - May 3 by Chief |
- you've made that up. The trust had just as much right to buy shares as the others. They actively campaigned to get rid of Petty before the likes of Katzen paid in. But yes it is sad they're unloved today but they've got no one to blame but themselves. Again, any evidence whatsoever that Wrexhams owner have 'learnt' from Swansea or have you just made that up too?
- well you've checked, why not give us more details of what you are referring to and of what relevance that is?
- Just saying there were allegations. That's all.
- Unfortunately without evidence it's very difficult to believe you because we know you will literally twist anything and everything against the trust so it's easy to discount that random comment.
- False, if the trust had been informed from the start as they should have been maybe they could have got that mandate. You've contradicted yourself there. Why did the Americans confirm the trust were excluded then? On camera? No, the sellers guessed the trust's intentions based on the past, not the present or future situation. It could prove a costly mistake for them. |
SCST were able to buy shares in Swansea city. The question is what other assets do the Trust have the rght to buy. Equities, bonds, Trust funds proporty funds, property Government gilts? . Do you have any knowledge on this? As a member prehaps it would be worth finding out.
They had no 'right' to buy shares in Swansea city. They need to thank other people for making it happen for them. This is long forgotten sadly. The trouble with people like yourself is that you do not acknowledge good things in people only bad things. A £10k gift completely forgotten and you are too lazy to look it up. Not relevant to you. I remember and am grateful to his kind gesture. Just as I am to the people who helped set up the SCST including some people on the old board.
Those lovely US actors ar Wrexham are so nice to the town etc. Not so nice that they were willing to become partners. Its clear to see. No supporters Trust no problems.
You should not promote allegations that are baseless. It is low class behaviour.
I do not have to justify observations from years ago that are not in any way critical of anyone.
The SCST were excluded from intial discussions as they notified their shares were "not for sale". They had notified other directors of that fact. In that case including them in early stage discussions that were 'commerically sensitive' was probably a justifiable call. | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 17:30 - May 3 with 398 views | Thornburyswan |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 15:33 - May 3 by jasper_T |
The Glazers can afford to replace a few smashed windows with the money they rinse from the club and community. [Post edited 3 May 2021 15:34]
|
You are absolutely correct on that point but unfortunately doesn’t justify the breaking of them in the first place. | | | |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 18:50 - May 3 with 373 views | onehunglow |
And so it goes on and on. How the ordinary non expert man in the street fan gets by I really do not know. | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 18:52 - May 3 with 373 views | Chief |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 17:24 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
SCST were able to buy shares in Swansea city. The question is what other assets do the Trust have the rght to buy. Equities, bonds, Trust funds proporty funds, property Government gilts? . Do you have any knowledge on this? As a member prehaps it would be worth finding out.
They had no 'right' to buy shares in Swansea city. They need to thank other people for making it happen for them. This is long forgotten sadly. The trouble with people like yourself is that you do not acknowledge good things in people only bad things. A £10k gift completely forgotten and you are too lazy to look it up. Not relevant to you. I remember and am grateful to his kind gesture. Just as I am to the people who helped set up the SCST including some people on the old board.
Those lovely US actors ar Wrexham are so nice to the town etc. Not so nice that they were willing to become partners. Its clear to see. No supporters Trust no problems.
You should not promote allegations that are baseless. It is low class behaviour.
I do not have to justify observations from years ago that are not in any way critical of anyone.
The SCST were excluded from intial discussions as they notified their shares were "not for sale". They had notified other directors of that fact. In that case including them in early stage discussions that were 'commerically sensitive' was probably a justifiable call. |
- I see you've diverted that conversation away to an entirely different point now. And no i do not have much knowledge of it, so I'd rather not speculate and leave in the capable hands of the trust board to confirm what they are able or want to invest in.
- 10k gift from who? You seem reluctant to tell us for some reason. So now you're grateful to the trust!? Are you confused? Doesn't really matter who donated money to the trust anyway. Their money was as good as anyone's to Petty. And thus they had just as much right as any other buying shareholder.
- Certainly, im sure the Americans wouldn't have wanted a trust around. That pesky trust questioning decisions on behalf of the fans. As I've already pointed out to you though. Those actors are so high profile&were in their purchase that it would be a PR disaster for them to let Wrexham suffer. Contrast that with the 30odd faceless dentists etc who didn't fancy connecting themselves with the Swans.
- Just pointing out allegations exist. Was this the first time you'd heard them?
- No you don't, but it would improve your low level of credibility somewhat.
- Notified years prior, at the point of a different bid. Circumstances were about to change. Justifiable for their own personal gain. Mugging an old woman in the street could be justified for one's own personal gain. Doesn't mean that it should be done though. Fellow shareholders with whom you have a shareholders agreement with is exactly the people you need to share 'commercially sensitive' bids and information with. They didn't and as such left themselves open to litigation. Careless. | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 19:43 - May 3 with 356 views | jasper_T |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 17:30 - May 3 by Thornburyswan |
You are absolutely correct on that point but unfortunately doesn’t justify the breaking of them in the first place. |
Does it not? They're parasites who steal millions from football and a community, and schemed to damage the football league in order to make millions more. Costing them some money evidently seems very justifiable to many fans. Sometimes legality and morality are different things.
Old Trafford's not in good nick to begin with though so maybe they won't bother fixing anything. Save a few quid for dividends. | | | |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 20:27 - May 3 with 340 views | Thornburyswan |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 19:43 - May 3 by jasper_T |
Does it not? They're parasites who steal millions from football and a community, and schemed to damage the football league in order to make millions more. Costing them some money evidently seems very justifiable to many fans. Sometimes legality and morality are different things.
Old Trafford's not in good nick to begin with though so maybe they won't bother fixing anything. Save a few quid for dividends. |
Again you make some decent points but they still do not justify breaking & entry - personally might have overlooked that one - criminal damage & assault on the police. | | | |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 20:41 - May 3 with 332 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 18:52 - May 3 by Chief |
- I see you've diverted that conversation away to an entirely different point now. And no i do not have much knowledge of it, so I'd rather not speculate and leave in the capable hands of the trust board to confirm what they are able or want to invest in.
- 10k gift from who? You seem reluctant to tell us for some reason. So now you're grateful to the trust!? Are you confused? Doesn't really matter who donated money to the trust anyway. Their money was as good as anyone's to Petty. And thus they had just as much right as any other buying shareholder.
- Certainly, im sure the Americans wouldn't have wanted a trust around. That pesky trust questioning decisions on behalf of the fans. As I've already pointed out to you though. Those actors are so high profile&were in their purchase that it would be a PR disaster for them to let Wrexham suffer. Contrast that with the 30odd faceless dentists etc who didn't fancy connecting themselves with the Swans.
- Just pointing out allegations exist. Was this the first time you'd heard them?
- No you don't, but it would improve your low level of credibility somewhat.
- Notified years prior, at the point of a different bid. Circumstances were about to change. Justifiable for their own personal gain. Mugging an old woman in the street could be justified for one's own personal gain. Doesn't mean that it should be done though. Fellow shareholders with whom you have a shareholders agreement with is exactly the people you need to share 'commercially sensitive' bids and information with. They didn't and as such left themselves open to litigation. Careless. |
I am asking you to investigate the matter of what the SCST can legally invest in. I go out of my way to answer your questions to the best of my ability. As a member you can request the information.
I go out of my way not to personalise my posts. I defend the old board but do not name any SCST people. I am critical of their actions but respect they are volunteers. The gentleman is a well known Neath based insurer.
The SCST by prolonging the prospective case are costing themselves and the club money by generating bad publicity. I thank the well healed people in USA who invested in Swansea city. When the crisis struck it was the US people not the Welsh who put their hands in their pockets. The actress fronted up on GMTV with Ophra Winfrey. Not exactly staying out of sight. She will be aware she might not get a warm reception from the grim grey local people. Like me she has not idea why. If we met I would explain to her the locals are a bit "odd".
I heard the comments and see no issue whatsoever. The club did a great job on time and on budget. On foum like this there are alsorts of fruitcake allegations like from our traveller friend, It is low class behaviour.
The SCST stated in 2015 their shares "were not for sale" . In fact the director told the other director "they would never sell ". This was in February 2015. If anything had changed in the peiod they would have annouced it but they did not as far as I am aware. They stated "selling was not their preference" even in 2016 after the sale talks were announced.
The sale did not go ahead primarily because the offer a not acceptable to SCST people. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
