| The trust debate 2 12:42 - Apr 12 with 2859 views | KeithHaynes |
Unfortunately hijacked.
And ruined.
Shame really, but colours are often nailed to a mast. Please remember this is a forum for debate not opinion on what’s not there.
My point is this, and yes I have NOW read an article posted on another website about the trust. My view does not change to much extent. My personal feeling remains that certain individuals on the trust board through time have placed their own interests before that of their appointment. This article today is a well constructed and very articulate piece. I’m unsure where it fits in with my belief that certain trust members have not fulfilled their obligations as paid members of the trust would have expected.
It merely offers one side of an opinion with one or two revelations which are disappointing. Some of us are able to speak up and walk away with everything intact, others believe they are the only route out of a situation and others couldn’t do better.
I stand by my opinion.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| The trust debate 2 on 16:05 - Apr 12 with 1154 views | NotLoyal |
| The trust debate 2 on 15:44 - Apr 12 by Chief |
***Deleted posts**** |
You have been asked to stop 18 times.
On this and another thread. |  |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 16:34 - Apr 12 with 1076 views | NotLoyal |
Keith deserves a night off and as a result of the very strange behaviour of the poster known as Chief, who is clearly the only one with an issue he has been given one too. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 16:35]
| |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 19:01 - Apr 12 with 948 views | 73__73 |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:32 - Apr 12 by Chief |
Have a good day and come back refreshed. I don't know why the SI twitter admin thinks it's a good look to pick arguments over Fulton then steer it to more personal matters and then offer up no evidence, but it's poor and a bad look.
And Resloven refuses to address my awkward points too  |
If it’s not wales it’s the trust. You are obsessed man.
The trust is well past its sell by date. Time to put up the closed sign. |  |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 19:47 - Apr 12 with 905 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust appears to have no financial acumen and therefore may as well give up. We are in a new era of inflation and the Trust appear to be wedded to devaluation. 6% per year is 50% over 10 years.
The legal case was an exercise in taking money from the club's other owners and giving half of it to third parties from London. The club's other owners would have taken money they loaned to the club back and given it to the Trust leaving the club with huge debts.
The collapse of the prospective court case is good news for the club as the loan will be converted into equity and not returned. This leaves the club with no debt.
The 'golden 5%' is a concern. If the Trust cannot sell it under any circumstances they have made a huge error. Something that cannot be converted to cash or earn cash is worthless. The 5% was worth £400,000 at today's valuation and up to £10m if the club was the Premier league. (they got to 90 mins of it last season).
The two questions I would be asking-
a) Under what circumstances can the 5% be converted to cash.
b) Will it be be included for determining any future dividend payments.
If the 'golden 5%' cannot be sold the other owners are a combined 5% better off when the club is sold.
Trust's can run clubs but Wrexham found it real hard work and handed their club over on a plate to US/Canadian TV stars. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 21:18]
|  |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 20:59 - Apr 12 with 849 views | cadleigh |
As a relative newbie to this forum (or rather a long-standing member who hasn't always paid close attention) can I say this is one of the most confusing threads I have ever seen!
Can someone give me an objective breakdown of the key issues here, without naming individuals or libelling anyone? | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 22:48 - Apr 12 with 762 views | Treforys_Jack |
I will never be okay with the trust being deliberately deceived and I'm surprised anybody other than the sellers are. |  | | |
| The trust debate 2 on 22:57 - Apr 12 with 756 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The trust debate 2 on 22:48 - Apr 12 by Treforys_Jack |
I will never be okay with the trust being deliberately deceived and I'm surprised anybody other than the sellers are. |
Not really about being ok with it, just a recognition that it was always a likely turn of events once they blocked the first one. These people wanted to sell their personal shares and were being prevented from doing so.
Would I rather it didn’t happen? Of course.
Was it inevitable though? Of course. |  |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 23:31 - Apr 12 with 736 views | Treforys_Jack |
| The trust debate 2 on 22:57 - Apr 12 by Dr_Parnassus |
Not really about being ok with it, just a recognition that it was always a likely turn of events once they blocked the first one. These people wanted to sell their personal shares and were being prevented from doing so.
Would I rather it didn’t happen? Of course.
Was it inevitable though? Of course. |
Accepting of it then, maybe a better phrase. "For the fans" | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The trust debate 2 on 23:45 - Apr 12 with 724 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The trust debate 2 on 23:31 - Apr 12 by Treforys_Jack |
Accepting of it then, maybe a better phrase. "For the fans" |
The Trust's performance has been diabolical for the last 7 years. They were unfit to be owners of Swansea city in my opinion. The legal case demonstrates how unsuitable these people were.
They have received £500,000. What are they going to do with it? Any ideas?. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 00:06 - Apr 13 with 712 views | Treforys_Jack |
| The trust debate 2 on 23:45 - Apr 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust's performance has been diabolical for the last 7 years. They were unfit to be owners of Swansea city in my opinion. The legal case demonstrates how unsuitable these people were.
They have received £500,000. What are they going to do with it? Any ideas?. |
Listen, you know my stance and I know yours, as I've said on multiple occasions no-one will ever convince me you're not something to do with the sellers , so lets leave it at that. | | | |
| The trust debate 2 on 01:42 - Apr 13 with 681 views | KeithHaynes |
| The trust debate 2 on 20:59 - Apr 12 by cadleigh |
As a relative newbie to this forum (or rather a long-standing member who hasn't always paid close attention) can I say this is one of the most confusing threads I have ever seen!
Can someone give me an objective breakdown of the key issues here, without naming individuals or libelling anyone? |
My OP explains it I think, thereafter we had continual, and persistent questions about an unrelated subject which has resulted in one poster being put to bed early. I’ve seen the removed tweets and they have very similar context to those we received in January on Twitter making dramas out nothing and then making up allegations that they are being bullied. Utterly ridiculous. I didn’t read this poster standing up for the website on Twitter when it was under attack by five or so cowardly people back then, so I’m surprised a similar manipulative tone was used earlier yesterday. If that poster likes this website for its content so much it would have been nice to have read it on Twitter three months ago. But I didn’t. Agenda.
I fully agree with the ban. I will speak with that person later today.
If they wish to come back they are welcome if they don’t my sleep won’t be interrupted. Anonymous posters are welcome on here of course as they are on Twitter. It’s clear a few people who still dig around this site looking for issues still exist, as anonymous as they are. I doubt I will ever meet them, apart from the few I do know but that’s another subject.
We have every right to redress any attack in the website via any forum or medium we choose. We never instigate these issues just respond to them, some people don’t like it, well, don’t be anonymous and address it.
If they have the gonads that is.
On the subject of this thread, as I said my thoughts are in the OP, anyone is entitled to reply, but not by trying to force issues which don’t exist or manipulate a conversation due to their very odd take on matters. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 07:59 - Apr 13 with 589 views | ItchySphincter |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:04 - Apr 12 by Dr_Parnassus |
Trust ended for me maybe 7 years ago.
Not many would listen back then, I explained in great detail why the Trust wouldn’t survive another decade. Their only play was to change their aims the second they knew, even got a hint that others wanted to sell.
They lacked foresight, were far too rigid in their aims which didn’t really change until wheels were in motion and far too many of them were self serving, doing so to create some sort of personal legacy.
There are so many instances of wrong doing which obviously would get complained about if I repeated them, but there was repeated error after error for the last 7 years or so.
This recent deal with the Americans being signed behind the backs of the members for me is not too different to the vote that was essentially pre determined by process to take another terrible deal a few years back.
Asking a question you can essentially manufacture and answer for is not a million miles away from not asking it at all in my book.
Past members are absolutely trying to throw more recent members under the bus. For my money they are all as bad as each other. |
There may be some truth in the majority of that but the last sentence ruins it. |  |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 08:01 - Apr 13 with 587 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The trust debate 2 on 07:59 - Apr 13 by ItchySphincter |
There may be some truth in the majority of that but the last sentence ruins it. |
Why would a point you disagree with ruin points you do? 
That’s unfortunate anyway.
It’s all true though. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 09:55 - Apr 13 with 517 views | ItchySphincter |
| The trust debate 2 on 08:01 - Apr 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
Why would a point you disagree with ruin points you do?
That’s unfortunate anyway.
It’s all true though. |
What a silly question.
Unfortunate indeed.
Not all true though. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 10:53 - Apr 13 with 471 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The trust debate 2 on 10:49 - Apr 13 by ItchySphincter |
Stop it you joker.
Your post skirted around what may be true in my opinion but your last sentence is boIIocks.
Clear enough for you cowboy? |
Not clear at all.
So what is and what isn’t true?
It all appears true. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 11:04 - Apr 13 with 455 views | ItchySphincter |
| The trust debate 2 on 10:53 - Apr 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
Not clear at all.
So what is and what isn’t true?
It all appears true. |
It ain’t.
It’s opinion, some of which I believe to be true, some of which I don’t.
Comprende? | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 11:23 - Apr 13 with 443 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The trust debate 2 on 11:04 - Apr 13 by ItchySphincter |
It ain’t.
It’s opinion, some of which I believe to be true, some of which I don’t.
Comprende? |
Nope you said it isn’t true, now you are saying you just don’t think it is.
You have to be far clearer I’m afraid if you are going to try to be clever with the Dr
It is all true though. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
