| More information on the Convertible Loan note 19:41 - Dec 3 with 12693 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
This is an extract from the Structured dialogue held early this month. (presented on Planetswans) . Given in parenthesis
[Julian stated that last year ownership invested, via a loan note, around £10-13 million. Jake Silverstein invested half, Jason Levien and Steve Kaplan matched that and some of our other shareholders contributed smaller amounts, into a convertible loan note. This club is a debt free club, apart from the convertible loan note, which is designed to leave the club debt free. We have capacity in the loan note to be able to do more and there will be a need this year for them to do more. We need to understand what we need from the January window and get through the beginning of the summer window. Our financial year is from August, so if a player is sold in July, then it would go into this year’s numbers.]
It seems some of the local shareholders may also have contributed. Interesting.
[Post edited 3 Dec 2021 19:44]
|  |
| |  |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:17 - Dec 7 with 987 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 16:50 - Dec 7 by Chief |
Well sacked / resigned let's face it, he left after defying the Americans over the James saga.
What builders do you keep going on about!?
https://www.thestadiumbusiness
The swans took the council to court and lost.
Only now has Winter stated that other parties besides Silverstein plus K&L were involved in the CLN. Do you accept this as fact?
I've shown you directly where the trust were not aware of their involvement. It was sold to the trust as 'investment' from Silverstein matched by the American owners.
Yes the trust have stated they weren't aware that the CLN wasn't finalised and weren't aware that it was going to get released. This does not sound like the language of a party that were fully consulted and included. On what basis do you think the trust were offered to contribute? Complete hunch?
The members are thinking what we have been all along. The long term security and future of the club. And if local charities can continue to be helped along the way, happy days. |
Were the SCST offered the chance to invest in the Convertible Loan note?
They have not complained about it so I assume the declined the invitation. The Model notes specifically allows them to buy shares in the club.
Ring them up and find out. You are a member and have the right to know. Cannot be arzed? Its not Sunday.
The club took the Council AND Interserve to court. They are the developers / builders. On a bad run Chief. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:33 - Dec 7 with 977 views | BillyChong |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:17 - Dec 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Were the SCST offered the chance to invest in the Convertible Loan note?
They have not complained about it so I assume the declined the invitation. The Model notes specifically allows them to buy shares in the club.
Ring them up and find out. You are a member and have the right to know. Cannot be arzed? Its not Sunday.
The club took the Council AND Interserve to court. They are the developers / builders. On a bad run Chief. |
As a supporters trust and supporters of the club SCST would have no interest in offering the club a CLN at the above market interest rate of 5%. The SCST and an American investor with no historic ties to the club are a totally different kettle of fish. You still don’t grasp the concept of a supporters trust let alone a shareholders agreement. |  | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:25 - Dec 7 with 958 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:17 - Dec 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Were the SCST offered the chance to invest in the Convertible Loan note?
They have not complained about it so I assume the declined the invitation. The Model notes specifically allows them to buy shares in the club.
Ring them up and find out. You are a member and have the right to know. Cannot be arzed? Its not Sunday.
The club took the Council AND Interserve to court. They are the developers / builders. On a bad run Chief. |
All indications are that they weren't. What is certain is that they weren't informed about the other minor shareholders had contributed. That information was not passed on.
Not necessarily, because as it's just a loan currently the Americans probably have no obligation to invite anyone. At the point that it gets converted then they'd have to invite other shareholders.
I'm comfortable with the conclusion that I have come to with the information at hand, which suggests they were not asked to contribute. I don't want to waste their time doing your bidding. You can try and find out if you wish. Ask the Americans.
Ah so they did take the council to court then? A body which they have a binding contractual agreement? A 'partner' you might say? |  |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:29 - Dec 7 with 952 views | Catullus |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:17 - Dec 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Were the SCST offered the chance to invest in the Convertible Loan note?
They have not complained about it so I assume the declined the invitation. The Model notes specifically allows them to buy shares in the club.
Ring them up and find out. You are a member and have the right to know. Cannot be arzed? Its not Sunday.
The club took the Council AND Interserve to court. They are the developers / builders. On a bad run Chief. |
Were the SCST offered you ask but then you say you assume they declined the invitation because they haven't complained.
Another poor assumption made to back up your opinion. What if the SCST complained to the owners but didn't make anything public, or what if they were never asked?
What if you stopped presenting assumptions as if they are facts? | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:31 - Dec 7 with 947 views | KeithHaynes |
As much as I appreciate the variety of discussions regards this.
Is there anyone who doesn’t care ? |  |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:52 - Dec 7 with 940 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:29 - Dec 7 by Catullus |
Were the SCST offered you ask but then you say you assume they declined the invitation because they haven't complained.
Another poor assumption made to back up your opinion. What if the SCST complained to the owners but didn't make anything public, or what if they were never asked?
What if you stopped presenting assumptions as if they are facts? |
I highlighted Winter stated US shareholders (and other shareholders) have joined the CLN. The 'other shareholders' must have been invited. Some have suggested the 5% is excessive. This needs study.
I drew the attention to the possibility that the much maligned selling shareholders might have invested while the fans body actually declined to invest as a way to either make a decent return or reduce the effect of dilution.
I assume the largest 'other shareholder' was also invited. I have asked the Chief as a member to check it out as he suggested they had been excluded. If they were excluded they have a right to complain in my view. But were they.?
The SCST have complained about not being informed about the announcement of a deal not being excluded from the deal.
I ask questions. People should always ask questions in an open democratic society. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:08 - Dec 7 with 935 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:52 - Dec 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I highlighted Winter stated US shareholders (and other shareholders) have joined the CLN. The 'other shareholders' must have been invited. Some have suggested the 5% is excessive. This needs study.
I drew the attention to the possibility that the much maligned selling shareholders might have invested while the fans body actually declined to invest as a way to either make a decent return or reduce the effect of dilution.
I assume the largest 'other shareholder' was also invited. I have asked the Chief as a member to check it out as he suggested they had been excluded. If they were excluded they have a right to complain in my view. But were they.?
The SCST have complained about not being informed about the announcement of a deal not being excluded from the deal.
I ask questions. People should always ask questions in an open democratic society. |
Why 'must'? Up until the other day, you like the rest of had absolutely no idea that other minority shareholders had contributed. Let alone been asked. Well study it then.
Well they haven't invested. They've just loaned (at an interest rate that I'm told is high). So there's that myth busted.
Why would you assume that? No statements from the trust suggest they were. Well they have complained, they've openly stated they weren't aware discussions had been finalised before the news was released. They did also complain about the lack of communication.
And it's worse than that, it seems that they were actively lied to. Again. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:57 - Dec 7 with 903 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:08 - Dec 7 by Chief |
Why 'must'? Up until the other day, you like the rest of had absolutely no idea that other minority shareholders had contributed. Let alone been asked. Well study it then.
Well they haven't invested. They've just loaned (at an interest rate that I'm told is high). So there's that myth busted.
Why would you assume that? No statements from the trust suggest they were. Well they have complained, they've openly stated they weren't aware discussions had been finalised before the news was released. They did also complain about the lack of communication.
And it's worse than that, it seems that they were actively lied to. Again. |
I believe that Winter is a competent CEO. He has revealed other shareholders other than the US ones have contributed to the CLN which is described by him as an investment. Possibly the two remaining sellers.
The investment we understand is initially in the form of an interest paying loan paying 5% pa if the loan is not converted. I believe the club have left a way out for the "investors" to recover their loan if they are obliged to buy the Trusts's shares by the Court.
Winter would surely endeavour to treat share holders equitably and therefore I believe the SCST were also invited to invest. I have seen no evidence that they were excluded. If you have evidence they were excluded, please provide it. You can of course ring them up and ask them. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:12 - Dec 7 with 893 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:57 - Dec 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I believe that Winter is a competent CEO. He has revealed other shareholders other than the US ones have contributed to the CLN which is described by him as an investment. Possibly the two remaining sellers.
The investment we understand is initially in the form of an interest paying loan paying 5% pa if the loan is not converted. I believe the club have left a way out for the "investors" to recover their loan if they are obliged to buy the Trusts's shares by the Court.
Winter would surely endeavour to treat share holders equitably and therefore I believe the SCST were also invited to invest. I have seen no evidence that they were excluded. If you have evidence they were excluded, please provide it. You can of course ring them up and ask them. |
Yes he's told us this over a year since the CLN came into existence. And when it came into existence, the official line was that it was a loan from Silverstein matched by the American owners. So they've lied.
Who's 'we'? That doesn't make sense because half of the loan was put in by Silverstein who's not part of legal proceedings. And it's now come to light that the other shareholders are also involved in the CLN and they have no prospect of having to buy the trust's shares. So that's just unfeasible.
Good in a way though. If the sellouts are ordered to pay damages at least some of them won't be able to plead poverty now. Woops.
Why would he surely do this? We already know he or the Americans at minimum haven't been entirely truthful with the trust on this. I've provided you with the statements released at the time. They don't say that the American owners approached them to loan the club money. They were informed that Silverstein (who they knew nothing about and we're still waiting for information weeks later) was loaning the club money &the Americans were too. Zero indication that any other shareholders, last of all the trust were asked or offered to contribute. [Post edited 7 Dec 2021 22:22]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:52 - Dec 7 with 882 views | max936 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:57 - Dec 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I believe that Winter is a competent CEO. He has revealed other shareholders other than the US ones have contributed to the CLN which is described by him as an investment. Possibly the two remaining sellers.
The investment we understand is initially in the form of an interest paying loan paying 5% pa if the loan is not converted. I believe the club have left a way out for the "investors" to recover their loan if they are obliged to buy the Trusts's shares by the Court.
Winter would surely endeavour to treat share holders equitably and therefore I believe the SCST were also invited to invest. I have seen no evidence that they were excluded. If you have evidence they were excluded, please provide it. You can of course ring them up and ask them. |
Ring "them" who is them exactly and who do we ring? Do you think they got an office on Walters Road and have got PA's making them coffee all day.
They work voluntarily and work for a living, at least most of them do. |  | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 10:05 - Dec 8 with 844 views | Catullus |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:52 - Dec 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I highlighted Winter stated US shareholders (and other shareholders) have joined the CLN. The 'other shareholders' must have been invited. Some have suggested the 5% is excessive. This needs study.
I drew the attention to the possibility that the much maligned selling shareholders might have invested while the fans body actually declined to invest as a way to either make a decent return or reduce the effect of dilution.
I assume the largest 'other shareholder' was also invited. I have asked the Chief as a member to check it out as he suggested they had been excluded. If they were excluded they have a right to complain in my view. But were they.?
The SCST have complained about not being informed about the announcement of a deal not being excluded from the deal.
I ask questions. People should always ask questions in an open democratic society. |
Asking questions is good, very good. What is not so good is presenting answers as if they are fact when they are just guesses and assumptions.
You have always done this and it's always been to run down the trust and in staunch defence of Huw Jenkins and the others. Even in threads where they weren't mentioned, until you came along. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:09 - Dec 8 with 807 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:52 - Dec 7 by max936 |
Ring "them" who is them exactly and who do we ring? Do you think they got an office on Walters Road and have got PA's making them coffee all day.
They work voluntarily and work for a living, at least most of them do. |
Here you go.
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/c
Were the Trust excluded from joining the Convertible loan note? | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:25 - Dec 8 with 796 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 22:12 - Dec 7 by Chief |
Yes he's told us this over a year since the CLN came into existence. And when it came into existence, the official line was that it was a loan from Silverstein matched by the American owners. So they've lied.
Who's 'we'? That doesn't make sense because half of the loan was put in by Silverstein who's not part of legal proceedings. And it's now come to light that the other shareholders are also involved in the CLN and they have no prospect of having to buy the trust's shares. So that's just unfeasible.
Good in a way though. If the sellouts are ordered to pay damages at least some of them won't be able to plead poverty now. Woops.
Why would he surely do this? We already know he or the Americans at minimum haven't been entirely truthful with the trust on this. I've provided you with the statements released at the time. They don't say that the American owners approached them to loan the club money. They were informed that Silverstein (who they knew nothing about and we're still waiting for information weeks later) was loaning the club money &the Americans were too. Zero indication that any other shareholders, last of all the trust were asked or offered to contribute. [Post edited 7 Dec 2021 22:22]
|
I suspect it was Winter that approached the US owners for extra money due to the Covid 19 issue and loss of gate receipts that he had budgeted for.
The club notified the fans that a convertible loan had been issued by the US people and Silvertstein. It was for around £10m. In t his latest update the CLN is £10-13m and included 'other shareholders'. It would be fair to involve all other shareholders.
I have asked if the 'other shareholders' invited included the SCST?. There is no evidence that they were excluded. You have made certain assertions like the chairman has not been honest with the fans and SCST. I have asked you back your your claims by getting the facts directly from the SCST. Were they offered a chance to invest in the CLN?
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/c
The SCST are able to invest and loan money to the club. This is at a rate 33 times what they were getting in Santander (according to accounts) if they treat it as a loan. Why are they not invested in the CLN or not working to be involved in the next tranche of investment.?
Are these not reasonable questions.? | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:43 - Dec 8 with 786 views | BillyChong |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:25 - Dec 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suspect it was Winter that approached the US owners for extra money due to the Covid 19 issue and loss of gate receipts that he had budgeted for.
The club notified the fans that a convertible loan had been issued by the US people and Silvertstein. It was for around £10m. In t his latest update the CLN is £10-13m and included 'other shareholders'. It would be fair to involve all other shareholders.
I have asked if the 'other shareholders' invited included the SCST?. There is no evidence that they were excluded. You have made certain assertions like the chairman has not been honest with the fans and SCST. I have asked you back your your claims by getting the facts directly from the SCST. Were they offered a chance to invest in the CLN?
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/c
The SCST are able to invest and loan money to the club. This is at a rate 33 times what they were getting in Santander (according to accounts) if they treat it as a loan. Why are they not invested in the CLN or not working to be involved in the next tranche of investment.?
Are these not reasonable questions.? |
As a supporters trust and supporters of the club SCST would have no interest in offering the club a CLN at the above market interest rate of 5%. The SCST and an American investor with no historic ties to the club are a totally different kettle of fish. You still don’t grasp the concept of a supporters trust let alone a shareholders agreement. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:24 - Dec 8 with 770 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:25 - Dec 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suspect it was Winter that approached the US owners for extra money due to the Covid 19 issue and loss of gate receipts that he had budgeted for.
The club notified the fans that a convertible loan had been issued by the US people and Silvertstein. It was for around £10m. In t his latest update the CLN is £10-13m and included 'other shareholders'. It would be fair to involve all other shareholders.
I have asked if the 'other shareholders' invited included the SCST?. There is no evidence that they were excluded. You have made certain assertions like the chairman has not been honest with the fans and SCST. I have asked you back your your claims by getting the facts directly from the SCST. Were they offered a chance to invest in the CLN?
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/c
The SCST are able to invest and loan money to the club. This is at a rate 33 times what they were getting in Santander (according to accounts) if they treat it as a loan. Why are they not invested in the CLN or not working to be involved in the next tranche of investment.?
Are these not reasonable questions.? |
Maybe, who knows. If he was part of the plan from the beginning though he should know all the facts. But the story's changed.
Yes this is the information the trust were given too. Silverstein & K&L alone. So why didn't he tell everyone including the trust the truth from the start?
You've asked and you've been told repeatedly. The trust's statement is clear. They were told there was 'investment' from Silverstein. They didn't say 'we were approached by the owners with a view being part of a CLN' did they? No.
What other logical conclusion is there to come to other than him being dishonest? This CLN has been in existence for over & only now has he announced others involvement in it. Even you admit this is new news. So he's lied. Unless this is an extremely recent development. In that case why didn't he brief the trust? Doesn't add up see Resloven. So come on then you enjoy dreaming up scenarios. Give me a realistic one whereby Winter hasn't been dishonest or excluded or misled the trust and fans.
Why would the supporters trust want to take 5% interest out of the club? Come on we all know it's a rip off rate. So the supporters trust obviously shouldn't do that. But as has been repeatedly reiterated, all the trust's statements suggest they were not asked to contribute. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:27 - Dec 8 with 769 views | max936 |
The Trust was setup to Safeguard the CLUB, not for its own ends, what part aren't you getting from that, although more probably you don't want to get it. You wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of your agenda. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:30 - Dec 8 with 768 views | max936 |
You the one looking for answers, crack on. | | | |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:32 - Dec 8 with 762 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:30 - Dec 8 by max936 |
You the one looking for answers, crack on. |
Or ask the Winter. The club has an email address.
You've already had the trust's version. A version which hasn't changed (Unlike Winter's) | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:41 - Dec 8 with 759 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 17:43 - Dec 8 by BillyChong |
As a supporters trust and supporters of the club SCST would have no interest in offering the club a CLN at the above market interest rate of 5%. The SCST and an American investor with no historic ties to the club are a totally different kettle of fish. You still don’t grasp the concept of a supporters trust let alone a shareholders agreement. |
I understand that the concept of the SCST handing over one third of their 2016 valuation to London money men and their associates is probably not consistent with their values. I have explained a successful court case is likely in my opinion to harm the club the fans and possibly employees.
I have not seen the Shareholders agreement. I do not know what is in it. I presume it was an agreement between the 10 or so separate shareholders to manage their business on an equitable basis. Once a buyer came in to take up to 70% of the shares the Agreement was probably no longer appropriate. The Trust if applying the agreement could have used it to prevent the sale and a single majority ownership, at the time by serving a writ of some sort. This could have chased the buyer away and 'handcuffed' the other owners to the club. This does not seem reasonable to me as they had done 14 years of services and been very successful.
Swansea city wants owners that want to be at the club not force people to stay indefinitely which is not reasonable. I am not a lawyer but do not believe the sellers behaved un reasonably based on what I have read. The law is the law and as the saying goes can be an ass sometimes. Going to court is a huge gamble. Last resort the QC called it. That to me is "eating the family pet dog". [Post edited 8 Dec 2021 18:42]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:54 - Dec 8 with 753 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:41 - Dec 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I understand that the concept of the SCST handing over one third of their 2016 valuation to London money men and their associates is probably not consistent with their values. I have explained a successful court case is likely in my opinion to harm the club the fans and possibly employees.
I have not seen the Shareholders agreement. I do not know what is in it. I presume it was an agreement between the 10 or so separate shareholders to manage their business on an equitable basis. Once a buyer came in to take up to 70% of the shares the Agreement was probably no longer appropriate. The Trust if applying the agreement could have used it to prevent the sale and a single majority ownership, at the time by serving a writ of some sort. This could have chased the buyer away and 'handcuffed' the other owners to the club. This does not seem reasonable to me as they had done 14 years of services and been very successful.
Swansea city wants owners that want to be at the club not force people to stay indefinitely which is not reasonable. I am not a lawyer but do not believe the sellers behaved un reasonably based on what I have read. The law is the law and as the saying goes can be an ass sometimes. Going to court is a huge gamble. Last resort the QC called it. That to me is "eating the family pet dog". [Post edited 8 Dec 2021 18:42]
|
But you're making that up - you don't know how much they have to pay. And of course the trust's valuation is only worth what someone will pay. Which currently isn't much, evidence by a lack of offers. The case will only affect the club if the Americans decide to deliberately and bewilderingly decide to sabotage their own shareholding.
But you accept it's existence? And don't Jenkins's attempts to invalidate it suggest it is of importance and should have been adhered to? If it was no longer appropriate there would be no reason for Huw to actively tried to invalidate it. Well as you say the trust didnt do that (if it was actually possible) probably for the good of the club.
I'd leave it to the QC then Resloven. You aren't a lawyer, but they are. They also aren't biased and warped like you. You've been told about this before but you're being deliberately disingenuous. The last resort comment was merely to ensure that all other routes were looked into first. As is sensible and as will impress the judge. There's already a huge backlog in cases, if people can settle out of court then that's obviously going to be encouraged. But of course you're making out it means they're likely to lose. Which isn't the case because in yet another act of extreme disingenuity you've decided to omit the actual assesment of the case overall by the QC haven't you? Yes - they said the trust have a 'strong case'
I do enjoy busting your myths and bluster. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:34 - Dec 8 with 737 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:54 - Dec 8 by Chief |
But you're making that up - you don't know how much they have to pay. And of course the trust's valuation is only worth what someone will pay. Which currently isn't much, evidence by a lack of offers. The case will only affect the club if the Americans decide to deliberately and bewilderingly decide to sabotage their own shareholding.
But you accept it's existence? And don't Jenkins's attempts to invalidate it suggest it is of importance and should have been adhered to? If it was no longer appropriate there would be no reason for Huw to actively tried to invalidate it. Well as you say the trust didnt do that (if it was actually possible) probably for the good of the club.
I'd leave it to the QC then Resloven. You aren't a lawyer, but they are. They also aren't biased and warped like you. You've been told about this before but you're being deliberately disingenuous. The last resort comment was merely to ensure that all other routes were looked into first. As is sensible and as will impress the judge. There's already a huge backlog in cases, if people can settle out of court then that's obviously going to be encouraged. But of course you're making out it means they're likely to lose. Which isn't the case because in yet another act of extreme disingenuity you've decided to omit the actual assesment of the case overall by the QC haven't you? Yes - they said the trust have a 'strong case'
I do enjoy busting your myths and bluster. |
This is why no one engages in debate on this matter. You end up getting called 'biased' and 'warped'.
I accept 'biased' as I want the money to stay in Wales and be invested in Swansea city and good charitable causes not paying bonuses for the well healed of Ascot. You are biased towards the SCST English professional classes who are set to make millions of a successful court case. You will not divulge how many millions for good reason.
There was a 'strong case' v Joey Barton but we he walked free. Anything can happen. I trust the Courts favour on going strong businesses employing people and creating jobs who behave in a reasonable and flexible way and have good track records of corporate governance. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:44 - Dec 8 with 729 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:34 - Dec 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is why no one engages in debate on this matter. You end up getting called 'biased' and 'warped'.
I accept 'biased' as I want the money to stay in Wales and be invested in Swansea city and good charitable causes not paying bonuses for the well healed of Ascot. You are biased towards the SCST English professional classes who are set to make millions of a successful court case. You will not divulge how many millions for good reason.
There was a 'strong case' v Joey Barton but we he walked free. Anything can happen. I trust the Courts favour on going strong businesses employing people and creating jobs who behave in a reasonable and flexible way and have good track records of corporate governance. |
Because you obviously are. There is literally no evidence the trust were included but you refuse to accept that. Even Huw recognised the existence of the shareholders agreement but you refuse to accept that. I've offered you the opportunity to provide a scenario whereby Winter didn't mislead or lie to the fans & trust over the contributors to the CLN. But you refuse to even bother.
Well the trust after the case could soon have vastly more money to invest in local charitable causes than they do now so don't worry about that. No I'm just backing the trust's case and a QCs assessment of it. Justice too. I won't divulge what exactly? The inclusion of the 'professional classes' has been necessitated by the Americans letting the case get this far. Where are their lawyers from by the way?
Anything can happen, absolutely no sure things. The courts will pay no attention whatsoever to anything else other than the circumstances surrounding the case. They could have acted akin to mother Theresa since they turned up in Swansea (in fact they tried suing the local council ffs!) And the judge wouldn't care sorry. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:46 - Dec 8 with 729 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 18:32 - Dec 8 by Chief |
Or ask the Winter. The club has an email address.
You've already had the trust's version. A version which hasn't changed (Unlike Winter's) |
I have not accused anyone of lying or suggested the SCST were excluded from the CLN. I assume that since "other shareholders" were involved as revealed by Mr Winter, the SCST would have been invited too but declined.
The Chief made these claims without checking the facts. | |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:48 - Dec 8 with 727 views | Chief |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 19:46 - Dec 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have not accused anyone of lying or suggested the SCST were excluded from the CLN. I assume that since "other shareholders" were involved as revealed by Mr Winter, the SCST would have been invited too but declined.
The Chief made these claims without checking the facts. |
No but you've suggested that they were included with no evidence despite what the trust has stated. So you're assuming the trust declined.
The statements are there and have been posted for your reading from the trust's point of view. Absolutely no mention of them being invited to contribute. Why would they leave that out? [Post edited 8 Dec 2021 19:52]
| |
| |
| More information on the Convertible Loan note on 21:50 - Dec 8 with 698 views | max936 |
Time this thread was locked, its tedious in the extreme now, just going around in circles, there's been threads and threads based around the tedious subject. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.