| United v Liverpool. Protest 16:59 - May 2 with 2630 views | onehunglow |
Fans eh.
Going about it the wrong way .Again. |  |
| |  |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 20:57 - May 3 with 378 views | Chief |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 20:41 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
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. |
- You could request it too. You're the one with a bee in your bonnet constantly moaning about them yet you don't seem to have made any attempt to even check whether what you think they should be doing instead is even possible. Ive laid out the practical side of it from a lay person. The onus is on you.
- Very convenient. But you are still not even explaining the relevance of this supposed donation.
- how are they prolonging the case? Technically it hasn't commenced to even be prolonged. How are they costing themselves money? Bad publicity how exactly!? Carrying out proper due diligence!? It's a shame the well heeled Americans you speak of didn't do the same. They may have discovered the existence of a shareholders agreement and proceeded accordingly then.
- the actress fronted up only after she and others were exposed in the press, not of their own accord. Since then how much has she publicised her involvement? How many of her fans are actually aware of her involvement do you think? Yes I'm sure she would already assume that the locals were odd upon meeting you.
- ok then, glad you accept there were allegations. If you don't question things, people in authority will get away with anything.
- But crucially and you seem incapable of accepting this for some reason - they were not consulted on this particular deal, with these particular owners, under these particular terms at the time of this particular deal. So sorry, that won't wash. The Americans, no matter how much you wish to ignore it are on camera stating that the trust were deliberately excluded from negotiations. I can't make it any clearer for you. Multi million pound deals are no place for assumptions on compliance. If the trust had done similar you'd be absolutely hammering them.
- Yes and that's the trust's right. They should only sell on terms acceptable them. |  |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 23:02 - May 3 with 338 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 20:57 - May 3 by Chief |
- You could request it too. You're the one with a bee in your bonnet constantly moaning about them yet you don't seem to have made any attempt to even check whether what you think they should be doing instead is even possible. Ive laid out the practical side of it from a lay person. The onus is on you.
- Very convenient. But you are still not even explaining the relevance of this supposed donation.
- how are they prolonging the case? Technically it hasn't commenced to even be prolonged. How are they costing themselves money? Bad publicity how exactly!? Carrying out proper due diligence!? It's a shame the well heeled Americans you speak of didn't do the same. They may have discovered the existence of a shareholders agreement and proceeded accordingly then.
- the actress fronted up only after she and others were exposed in the press, not of their own accord. Since then how much has she publicised her involvement? How many of her fans are actually aware of her involvement do you think? Yes I'm sure she would already assume that the locals were odd upon meeting you.
- ok then, glad you accept there were allegations. If you don't question things, people in authority will get away with anything.
- But crucially and you seem incapable of accepting this for some reason - they were not consulted on this particular deal, with these particular owners, under these particular terms at the time of this particular deal. So sorry, that won't wash. The Americans, no matter how much you wish to ignore it are on camera stating that the trust were deliberately excluded from negotiations. I can't make it any clearer for you. Multi million pound deals are no place for assumptions on compliance. If the trust had done similar you'd be absolutely hammering them.
- Yes and that's the trust's right. They should only sell on terms acceptable them. |
You are an odd one. You posts replies to me have a handful of questions which I answer (often after doing some research). I ask you and its a "get lost". If write to the SCST they will say the same as you. I am not a member. You are.
You make out the SCST is a useful organisation that will eventially save the club. I make out they are political activists with little or no financial judgement and and ability. In order for them to be of any relevance they must be financially shrewd. I have presented the case that going to court makes no financial sense. They are unable to fullfill their brief without reform and a new way of thinking.
I do not know why you call it a supposed donation. It is a fact and reported on the SCST webpage history summary. I is significant becuase it demonstrates the vital nature and contibution of local businesses. The SCST should not be relishing taking local business people through the courts.
The pending nature of the court action has been going on since 2017 about 4 years. In this time if the SCST were financailly shrewd they would notionally at least be losing interest. It is not clear if advertisers have or will be put off by this possible court case. It is bound to create bad publicity.
You have not seen the SHA and neither have I. You suggested it gave the SCST first option on the shares up for offer. In a meeting well before any sale, they were invited to speak and made their offer. £0 for 4% of the shares to be sold. This offer was not acceptable and well below the market price.
Many people hold shares .I do myself. I do not need to publicise which share I own. It nobodies business . She invested in shares and cannot really understand why anyone would object. Only and dd ball would in my opinion.
The 'Traveller' makes all sorts of allegations based on nothing, and no one takes him seriously except the gullible. All work was done in a manner agreed with the SCST. You are a member. On budget and on time using in house skills.
The SCST did not need to be consulted early in the process. They had made it clear their shares were not for sale. Furthermore they had no mandate. This is their business. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 23:44 - May 3 with 323 views | Chief |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 23:02 - May 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are an odd one. You posts replies to me have a handful of questions which I answer (often after doing some research). I ask you and its a "get lost". If write to the SCST they will say the same as you. I am not a member. You are.
You make out the SCST is a useful organisation that will eventially save the club. I make out they are political activists with little or no financial judgement and and ability. In order for them to be of any relevance they must be financially shrewd. I have presented the case that going to court makes no financial sense. They are unable to fullfill their brief without reform and a new way of thinking.
I do not know why you call it a supposed donation. It is a fact and reported on the SCST webpage history summary. I is significant becuase it demonstrates the vital nature and contibution of local businesses. The SCST should not be relishing taking local business people through the courts.
The pending nature of the court action has been going on since 2017 about 4 years. In this time if the SCST were financailly shrewd they would notionally at least be losing interest. It is not clear if advertisers have or will be put off by this possible court case. It is bound to create bad publicity.
You have not seen the SHA and neither have I. You suggested it gave the SCST first option on the shares up for offer. In a meeting well before any sale, they were invited to speak and made their offer. £0 for 4% of the shares to be sold. This offer was not acceptable and well below the market price.
Many people hold shares .I do myself. I do not need to publicise which share I own. It nobodies business . She invested in shares and cannot really understand why anyone would object. Only and dd ball would in my opinion.
The 'Traveller' makes all sorts of allegations based on nothing, and no one takes him seriously except the gullible. All work was done in a manner agreed with the SCST. You are a member. On budget and on time using in house skills.
The SCST did not need to be consulted early in the process. They had made it clear their shares were not for sale. Furthermore they had no mandate. This is their business. |
- Unfortunately you rarely reply with any meaningful research. The questions expose your flawed logic because you mostly ignore them or say something defensive like 'I'm not your secretary'. Have a try at emailing them, see what happens.
- No, the only thing you've presented is that you do not want them to go to court at all costs. In fact you once stayed while referring to the sellout's windfall: "any mark up of that magnitude can never be considered a bad deal". So it makes perfect sense. It may secure both a buyer and the subsequent funds, both of which are otherwise going to be very difficult to come by. They are fulfilling their brief. Their brief isn't to loan the football club money to obtain a 5% dividend in return.
- And what is the relevance of this donation? Other people have donated shares to the trust. What's your point? The same local business people who actively plotted to exclude the supporters trust! They gave up any good will by that action unfortunately.
- They cannot tie up their capital while paying legal bills can they? This isn't rocket science, its logic. Well its just slinging shite at a wall and hoping that any random criticism sticks, but in vain.
- What advertisers do you refer to? Have advertisers been put off by the Americans decision to take the local county council court and losing?
- it was when the sale was at an extremely advanced stage, but yes there was apparently a bid made. Not sure where you've seen that the trust were invited to speak, but anyway, it wasn't what was stipulated within the agreement no matter how you like to dress it up. If the sellouts had met their obligations by 'inviting' the trust to this meeting, why would Huw have tried to get the SHA annulled? You'll probably ignore that question yet again.
- Yes thats her right i never said it wasn't. But I'd certainly trust people who were willing to be perfectly transparent and proud of their purchase feom the outset. Because as i say, Reynolds et al are going to look extremely silly if this doesn't work out at Wrecsam. While Mindy and the other 30 odd faceless dentists melt away into the ether if we went belly up.
- As i say, just stating there were allegations. No need to get so defensive about it.....
- Unfortunately contrary to your apparent belief, it actually seems that they did. As per the crux of the case and the QCs summation of it. If the trust win the case, wull will you be man enough to admit you were wrong on this point? | |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 12:01 - May 4 with 290 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 23:44 - May 3 by Chief |
- Unfortunately you rarely reply with any meaningful research. The questions expose your flawed logic because you mostly ignore them or say something defensive like 'I'm not your secretary'. Have a try at emailing them, see what happens.
- No, the only thing you've presented is that you do not want them to go to court at all costs. In fact you once stayed while referring to the sellout's windfall: "any mark up of that magnitude can never be considered a bad deal". So it makes perfect sense. It may secure both a buyer and the subsequent funds, both of which are otherwise going to be very difficult to come by. They are fulfilling their brief. Their brief isn't to loan the football club money to obtain a 5% dividend in return.
- And what is the relevance of this donation? Other people have donated shares to the trust. What's your point? The same local business people who actively plotted to exclude the supporters trust! They gave up any good will by that action unfortunately.
- They cannot tie up their capital while paying legal bills can they? This isn't rocket science, its logic. Well its just slinging shite at a wall and hoping that any random criticism sticks, but in vain.
- What advertisers do you refer to? Have advertisers been put off by the Americans decision to take the local county council court and losing?
- it was when the sale was at an extremely advanced stage, but yes there was apparently a bid made. Not sure where you've seen that the trust were invited to speak, but anyway, it wasn't what was stipulated within the agreement no matter how you like to dress it up. If the sellouts had met their obligations by 'inviting' the trust to this meeting, why would Huw have tried to get the SHA annulled? You'll probably ignore that question yet again.
- Yes thats her right i never said it wasn't. But I'd certainly trust people who were willing to be perfectly transparent and proud of their purchase feom the outset. Because as i say, Reynolds et al are going to look extremely silly if this doesn't work out at Wrecsam. While Mindy and the other 30 odd faceless dentists melt away into the ether if we went belly up.
- As i say, just stating there were allegations. No need to get so defensive about it.....
- Unfortunately contrary to your apparent belief, it actually seems that they did. As per the crux of the case and the QCs summation of it. If the trust win the case, wull will you be man enough to admit you were wrong on this point? |
You support a "last resort" legal action costing around 40% commision yet have no idea how the SCST can invest the money. It is fair to say you are not even interested. It figures. Without cash and without friends in the local community the SCST is redundant.
The importance to the donation is that the "local business community" is vital to the club and vital to the SCST. A litigous attitude will not win friends in the local community and will garner mistrust in the business community. Donations might be hard to find if there is a second time around.
The SCST were not in a position to sell in 2016 and did not want to sell anyway and said so. You are misinformed about the brief. The SCST is allowed to raise cash by fund raising measures. Any fee paying member worth his or her salt would find out what this actually means.
How much is not tieing up cash because of of the legal claim. Upto Covid Iwas getting 1.2% interest on a 3 year bond. THe SCST were losng £9600 a year for at least 7 years. £67,000 wasted already.
You fail to see the difference between the council and the SCST. Having fan group in confilcit with the Club owners is not good for business. 4 years is long enough to make a case.
Your use of "extremely advance stage" is false. They were in discussions with 4 months before finalisation. I read March 2016 with finalisation in July 2016. The SCST clearly wanted extra shares not less shares and made an offer to "take on" 4% of the available shares for £0. This no doubt caused a loss of "goodwill ".
Neither you nor I have seen the SHL. From what you say it gives the SCST first options on buying. From what i have read they made an offer that was unacceptable. You ask hypothetic questions based on speculation but cannot deliver hard facts. (like what can the SCST invest in). Why did somebody do this or that?. Nonsense.
Reynolds and Co did not make the same mistake Morgan and co made that is for sure.
I applaud the "faceless 30" US investors they may have coughed up another £5m or so between them for the CLN. I am concerned about the mentality of the 'faceless' 1300. I have seen interviews by Birch, Kaplan, Winter, Levien and Silverstein. Never seen anything of SCST people.
I see very little chance of a successful case. Winning is of no use unless the SCST have an investment plan that protects their holding from inflation. Losing 2% from inflation is small but over 10 years it amounts to 22%. Of £14m that would be over £3m. (£25,000 a week). The legal case has taken 4 years. This is an organisation in drift from what i can see. [Post edited 4 May 2021 12:07]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 16:06 - May 4 with 259 views | onehunglow |
| United v Liverpool. Protest on 16:02 - May 4 by Chief |
Ah well there's no point me repeating everything all over again. Everything there has been addressed numerous times.
Keep pretending the QC didn't say the trust had a strong case and that Huw didn't try to get the SHA invalidated though if it helps you sleep at night  |
When fans are allowed back in,I'd pay good money to see you two at it face to face. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
