| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday 11:22 - Apr 19 with 8706 views | vetchonian |
I notived Kristian O leary was sat on hte bench yesterday with a earpiece has he been promoted to the first team coaching staff? |  |
| |  |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:05 - Apr 20 with 1177 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:58 - Apr 20 by KeithHaynes |
People do forget the trust competently binning another bidder a bit before the current owners were accepted.
Obviously for me, they kept it quiet as this lot would have been rejected as well, or may have been.
Hence the secrecy. |
Well that bidder never did bid and were reportedly shady about their motives and plans, but at least they had the balls to meet the trust. But ultimately didn't bid for anyone's shares.
Yes of course that's why they did it to greedily ensure they were sorted. Nothing to do with any words the trust had previously said. But none of them have the balls or decency to admit that this is why they acted as they did.
But as I say, I don't think it was needed. If these Americans were prepared to truck on without consulting the trust (on the sellouts advice) and waiting to see how they'd react after the deals done, I doubt they'd really care or listen to what the trust would have had to say.
And I don't think the trust really had the power to 'reject' these in whole, just reject any bids for their own shares. They could certainly have laid out to the Americans what they expected of them and asked awkward questions, but my understanding is that once the trust were informed at an early stage&received a comparative bid they wouldn't be deemed to have been disadvantaged. Whatever the Americans and sellouts then did is irrelevant to the whole thing them having undertaken their contractual (and moral) duties. [Post edited 20 Apr 2022 19:09]
|  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:10 - Apr 20 with 1160 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:33 - Apr 20 by Chief |
Yes as I've already said many times. His reign as chairman doesn't excuse his extremely shady role in the sale of the club. Ultimately hes sullied his stellar reputation for his own personal greed. |
In my opinion it DOES excuse any grievances the Trust might have in regard to the sale.
The reason for this is the Trust have not demonstrated that they can actually deliver on their promises of being the "guardian of football in Swansea" . They, in my opinion talk the talk but do not (at present) belong as major shareholders in a Championship or PL team. If they are upset then this is of no consequence until they can demonstrate their worth. They voted to do something stupid and had to surrender after 4 long years. It hurts still for sure.
The provision of 4G football pitches in the Swansea catchment as part of the Stadium deal. Is it on the agenda? Right up their street you would think. This organisation does not deliver and the members do not make them deliver.
The first question on the agenda is INFLATION. Now at 7% with £1.3m+ getting no interest Its value is shrinking day by day in real terms. (£250 per day). |  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:18 - Apr 20 with 1155 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:10 - Apr 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
In my opinion it DOES excuse any grievances the Trust might have in regard to the sale.
The reason for this is the Trust have not demonstrated that they can actually deliver on their promises of being the "guardian of football in Swansea" . They, in my opinion talk the talk but do not (at present) belong as major shareholders in a Championship or PL team. If they are upset then this is of no consequence until they can demonstrate their worth. They voted to do something stupid and had to surrender after 4 long years. It hurts still for sure.
The provision of 4G football pitches in the Swansea catchment as part of the Stadium deal. Is it on the agenda? Right up their street you would think. This organisation does not deliver and the members do not make them deliver.
The first question on the agenda is INFLATION. Now at 7% with £1.3m+ getting no interest Its value is shrinking day by day in real terms. (£250 per day). |
- it absolutely doesn't. As you've demonstrated repeatedly you're incapable of thinking on a balanced manner about them.
- again empty soundbytes. The sellouts took everything out of their hands. The trust had an opportunity to really safeguard the future of the club. Due to deception and collusion, they were denied the opportunity. Fvck all to do with the sellouts thinking they trust were in any way unfit. In fact it was done because the trust were too good. Because they knew the trust would diligently carry out their duties protecting the club by vetting the prospective owners. The sellouts didn't want to take that risk. The sellouts couldn't care less whether the trust demonstrated their worth or not. They never complained by the way.
- so you're blaming the trust now for the club not fulfilling its duties? Why aren't you blaming the club?
- join the trust and ask them about about the inflation on their 500k. I don't care much to be honest. As you rightfully pointed out, it's useless. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:26 - Apr 20 with 1143 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:58 - Apr 20 by KeithHaynes |
People do forget the trust competently binning another bidder a bit before the current owners were accepted.
Obviously for me, they kept it quiet as this lot would have been rejected as well, or may have been.
Hence the secrecy. |
The sellers probably feared the SCST would chase away the buyers that they perhaps had worked hard to find. Selling is not easy and buyers are not easily found.
This actually came to fruition in 2017 when the SCST did exactly that. The US owner walked away blaming the Trust who were in chaos with two chairmen resigning amid infighting.
The good news is the "Burnley Bingo question". Roll up roll up. Burnley were sold for a eye popping £200m in the middle of a pandemic. .
21% of £200m is a staggering £42m. Woe is mine. As Kenneth Williams once quoted the Chief. "Infamy infamy they' ve all got it in for me"
I invented 'Burnley Bingo' I was the first poster to post in Russian and to quote the late great Kenneth Williams. How I only got 2 votes (from a peak of 4) is a travesty. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:39 - Apr 20 with 1133 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:26 - Apr 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The sellers probably feared the SCST would chase away the buyers that they perhaps had worked hard to find. Selling is not easy and buyers are not easily found.
This actually came to fruition in 2017 when the SCST did exactly that. The US owner walked away blaming the Trust who were in chaos with two chairmen resigning amid infighting.
The good news is the "Burnley Bingo question". Roll up roll up. Burnley were sold for a eye popping £200m in the middle of a pandemic. .
21% of £200m is a staggering £42m. Woe is mine. As Kenneth Williams once quoted the Chief. "Infamy infamy they' ve all got it in for me"
I invented 'Burnley Bingo' I was the first poster to post in Russian and to quote the late great Kenneth Williams. How I only got 2 votes (from a peak of 4) is a travesty. |
- Yes and chasing away potential owners of the club who can't answer simple questions of their motives or plans is a big achievement of the trust. But ah you've changed your viewpoint again I see. I thought they innocently and in good faith didn't inform the trust because they assumed the trust didn't want to sell? Or have you now realised how utterly ridiculous that tale sounds?
- they made up the bit about infighting. Why would they care? They withdrew an offer very quickly after changing its terms, which wasn't the same offer as the sellouts received. So try again. If they wanted the shares they'd have left the bid there, given a deadline and left the trust decide.
- yea Burnley bingo and we're still no close to them despite your mindless waffle about carry on films. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:55 - Apr 20 with 1119 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:39 - Apr 20 by Chief |
- Yes and chasing away potential owners of the club who can't answer simple questions of their motives or plans is a big achievement of the trust. But ah you've changed your viewpoint again I see. I thought they innocently and in good faith didn't inform the trust because they assumed the trust didn't want to sell? Or have you now realised how utterly ridiculous that tale sounds?
- they made up the bit about infighting. Why would they care? They withdrew an offer very quickly after changing its terms, which wasn't the same offer as the sellouts received. So try again. If they wanted the shares they'd have left the bid there, given a deadline and left the trust decide.
- yea Burnley bingo and we're still no close to them despite your mindless waffle about carry on films. |
You have been sold a pup Chief. All you predictions did not happen or even come close.
The members made a mistake after getting poor guidance wasting 6 years with a fake narrative. The members should have trusted in something they understand (football) not in something they do not (litigation, shareholder agreements, UK corporate Law No win no fee deals etc ).
Huw Jenkins 's work gave them 13 years of of continual success. Absolutely unprecedented. He deserves more credit. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 20:18 - Apr 20 with 1108 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:55 - Apr 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You have been sold a pup Chief. All you predictions did not happen or even come close.
The members made a mistake after getting poor guidance wasting 6 years with a fake narrative. The members should have trusted in something they understand (football) not in something they do not (litigation, shareholder agreements, UK corporate Law No win no fee deals etc ).
Huw Jenkins 's work gave them 13 years of of continual success. Absolutely unprecedented. He deserves more credit. |
- ah deflecting now because you have no retort. The discussion was around the conduct of the sellers and why they acted why they did, not the trust's strategy. Desperate. Out of interest what predictions did I have incorrect?
- the members voted based on legal advice that the trust procured. Funny how you always say they should employ experts, then tell everyone to ignore what they said when what those experts say doesn't suit your agenda.
- yea which Jenkins was doing for himself for which he was paid for handsomely and for which the fans and Trust thanked him repeatedly. If anything it makes the way he acted worse. Throwing that goodwill back in everyone's faces. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:23 - Apr 20 with 1092 views | Treforys_Jack |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:58 - Apr 20 by KeithHaynes |
People do forget the trust competently binning another bidder a bit before the current owners were accepted.
Obviously for me, they kept it quiet as this lot would have been rejected as well, or may have been.
Hence the secrecy. |
Don't think people have forgotten that, however just because 1 bidder was rejected it doesn't automatically mean the next would have been. No excuse for the underhand behaviour by the sellers. #for the fans |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:32 - Apr 20 with 1087 views | Dr_Winston |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:23 - Apr 20 by Treforys_Jack |
Don't think people have forgotten that, however just because 1 bidder was rejected it doesn't automatically mean the next would have been. No excuse for the underhand behaviour by the sellers. #for the fans |
Yep.
Nothing was going to stop them getting their money. Not much else to it. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:44 - Apr 20 with 1083 views | Treforys_Jack |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:32 - Apr 20 by Dr_Winston |
Yep.
Nothing was going to stop them getting their money. Not much else to it. |
That's the annoyance Dr W, they were already very wealthy from salaries and dividends which was richly deserved after going years just on expenses and the initial money invested to buy the club. That's why it's such a shame for me that they badly tarnished all that. Not sure why HJ gets all the blame mind, he almost certainly wasn't the driving force behind the sellout. | | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:53 - Apr 20 with 1079 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:44 - Apr 20 by Treforys_Jack |
That's the annoyance Dr W, they were already very wealthy from salaries and dividends which was richly deserved after going years just on expenses and the initial money invested to buy the club. That's why it's such a shame for me that they badly tarnished all that. Not sure why HJ gets all the blame mind, he almost certainly wasn't the driving force behind the sellout. |
Yea I agree, but Huw was the figurehead, he took the plaudits in the good times, he should take the bad press during the turbulent times.
And of course it was on his direction that the trust were asked to destroy the shareholders agreement and meeting minutes were falsely altered to try and retrospectively try and legitimise their deception. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:56 - Apr 20 with 1077 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:32 - Apr 20 by Dr_Winston |
Yep.
Nothing was going to stop them getting their money. Not much else to it. |
And none of them have the balls or decency to admit it. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:15 - Apr 20 with 1071 views | Treforys_Jack |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:53 - Apr 20 by Chief |
Yea I agree, but Huw was the figurehead, he took the plaudits in the good times, he should take the bad press during the turbulent times.
And of course it was on his direction that the trust were asked to destroy the shareholders agreement and meeting minutes were falsely altered to try and retrospectively try and legitimise their deception. |
Wasn't he also minuted as being in meetings he didn't attend or vice versa. Really classy. | | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:11 - Apr 20 with 1051 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:53 - Apr 20 by Chief |
Yea I agree, but Huw was the figurehead, he took the plaudits in the good times, he should take the bad press during the turbulent times.
And of course it was on his direction that the trust were asked to destroy the shareholders agreement and meeting minutes were falsely altered to try and retrospectively try and legitimise their deception. |
If the shareholders agreement was adhered to there was no sale from what I have picked up on forums. The Trust could have presumably gone to court in 2016 and stopped / delayed the sale.
If there was no sale there was no reward for the people like the Frenchman and the South African (venture capitalists) to make money. They invested where other local money men (and women) would not. Why should they not be allowed to sell? All the sellers went with out dividends for 13 out of the 14 years to ensure growth and my god there was some growth. A 10,000% return over 14 years.
The Trust did not seem so strong with figures and were getting 0.15% pa as reported in the last accounts I saw. It would take 67,000 years for Santander return to match what HJ an co provided for them. (or 1,980,000 subscription at £10 or 3,960,000 subscription at £5). Roughly 2000 years of total subscription from an assumed 1000 membership.
At some point common sense needs to kick in. Had the members been able to cash in, it would have been £20,000 per head and "where do you want your statue to go Huw?" | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:46 - Apr 20 with 1042 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:11 - Apr 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If the shareholders agreement was adhered to there was no sale from what I have picked up on forums. The Trust could have presumably gone to court in 2016 and stopped / delayed the sale.
If there was no sale there was no reward for the people like the Frenchman and the South African (venture capitalists) to make money. They invested where other local money men (and women) would not. Why should they not be allowed to sell? All the sellers went with out dividends for 13 out of the 14 years to ensure growth and my god there was some growth. A 10,000% return over 14 years.
The Trust did not seem so strong with figures and were getting 0.15% pa as reported in the last accounts I saw. It would take 67,000 years for Santander return to match what HJ an co provided for them. (or 1,980,000 subscription at £10 or 3,960,000 subscription at £5). Roughly 2000 years of total subscription from an assumed 1000 membership.
At some point common sense needs to kick in. Had the members been able to cash in, it would have been £20,000 per head and "where do you want your statue to go Huw?" |
- you must have interpreted it incorrectly then. No one would ever have signed up to such a document if that were the case.
- the Frenchman and the South African willingly signed up to the shareholders agreement (which I don't think prevented anyone from selling) and they took dividends which would have exceeded what they paid for their shares.
- what's the relevance of that next bit? I don't see any. Whether they had the membership or money in the bank or subscriptions or whatever you're waffling about - they were a shareholder just like all the other shareholders were. But unlike the rest they were actively excluded.
- what on Earth are you on about now? Members getting cash? That's never ever been a possibility. Bizarre statements. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 05:39 - Apr 21 with 1008 views | Treforys_Jack |
I don't understand why some (res especially) can't seem to accept that Jenkins did a fantastic job for a number of years (think 99% of swans fans agree that) but that doesn't excuse his conduct and behaviour regarding the sale of the club, which was less than honourable. | | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 07:57 - Apr 21 with 975 views | STID2017 |
Just started reading this thread.
What is the answer to the opening question? |  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 07:58 - Apr 21 with 975 views | Dr_Winston |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 05:39 - Apr 21 by Treforys_Jack |
I don't understand why some (res especially) can't seem to accept that Jenkins did a fantastic job for a number of years (think 99% of swans fans agree that) but that doesn't excuse his conduct and behaviour regarding the sale of the club, which was less than honourable. |
A lot of people tend to forget that Jenkins was never a huge fan of the Trust. They butted heads a number of times back in the mid-00's, which some good PR since (and obviously the rise of the club) glossed over.
Jenkins deserved credit for making five good managerial selections in a row (Jackett - Laudrup) and for providing them with the tools to do the job. It is however noticeable that of that list of five, his interference caused problems with two of them. Laudrup & Sousa both told him to sod off. Martinez and Rodgers were perhaps more politically savvy or just more prepared to tolerate him. Once Laudrup was gone he thought he finally had a free hand, and that was the beginning of the end.
Maybe I'm being harsh. Maybe after the fiasco of the Flynn years he decided that he'd been too hands off, and perhaps for a time he was right. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 08:04 - Apr 21 with 971 views | STID2017 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 07:58 - Apr 21 by Dr_Winston |
A lot of people tend to forget that Jenkins was never a huge fan of the Trust. They butted heads a number of times back in the mid-00's, which some good PR since (and obviously the rise of the club) glossed over.
Jenkins deserved credit for making five good managerial selections in a row (Jackett - Laudrup) and for providing them with the tools to do the job. It is however noticeable that of that list of five, his interference caused problems with two of them. Laudrup & Sousa both told him to sod off. Martinez and Rodgers were perhaps more politically savvy or just more prepared to tolerate him. Once Laudrup was gone he thought he finally had a free hand, and that was the beginning of the end.
Maybe I'm being harsh. Maybe after the fiasco of the Flynn years he decided that he'd been too hands off, and perhaps for a time he was right. |
Without reading two pages about the Trust, etc, what has any of it got to do with KOL? | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 08:55 - Apr 21 with 957 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 08:04 - Apr 21 by STID2017 |
Without reading two pages about the Trust, etc, what has any of it got to do with KOL? |
I have absolutely zero idea.
It was the resident propaganda bot that steered yet another thread in this direction. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:27 - Apr 21 with 900 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 08:55 - Apr 21 by Chief |
I have absolutely zero idea.
It was the resident propaganda bot that steered yet another thread in this direction. |
The chief culprit was Lone ranger that set off a chain of posts by setting off well known triggers. Although I am in no way pious I have a moral code. This means that all good deeds and acts need to be appreciated. It is the basis of a respectful and peaceful life. Chris Coleman alluded to the fact that being manager of Swansea would have a negative impact on his popularity in the area. A return of 10,000% on investment is eye watering good work. No appreciation from the few who were not called to account by people with common sense.
The key trigger here was the use of the word "Pinnochio" I believe was directed at the ex Chairman who did so much for Swansea and the Trust. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:35 - Apr 21 with 896 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:32 - Apr 20 by Dr_Winston |
Yep.
Nothing was going to stop them getting their money. Not much else to it. |
They had as much right to the money they invested plus profits as you do from your Bank account hole in the wall plus interest. It was their shares. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:35 - Apr 21 with 871 views | STID2017 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:27 - Apr 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The chief culprit was Lone ranger that set off a chain of posts by setting off well known triggers. Although I am in no way pious I have a moral code. This means that all good deeds and acts need to be appreciated. It is the basis of a respectful and peaceful life. Chris Coleman alluded to the fact that being manager of Swansea would have a negative impact on his popularity in the area. A return of 10,000% on investment is eye watering good work. No appreciation from the few who were not called to account by people with common sense.
The key trigger here was the use of the word "Pinnochio" I believe was directed at the ex Chairman who did so much for Swansea and the Trust. |
The man to whom some refer to as "Bignose" was a neighbour of mine and once nodded to me while cutting his back lawn.
Seemed like a nice enough guy.
That said, he never offered me any free tickets the tight wad.  | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:46 - Apr 21 with 866 views | Treforys_Jack |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:35 - Apr 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They had as much right to the money they invested plus profits as you do from your Bank account hole in the wall plus interest. It was their shares. |
Never heard anyone argue any different to be honest, have you ? | | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 20:06 - Apr 21 with 850 views | theloneranger |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:27 - Apr 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The chief culprit was Lone ranger that set off a chain of posts by setting off well known triggers. Although I am in no way pious I have a moral code. This means that all good deeds and acts need to be appreciated. It is the basis of a respectful and peaceful life. Chris Coleman alluded to the fact that being manager of Swansea would have a negative impact on his popularity in the area. A return of 10,000% on investment is eye watering good work. No appreciation from the few who were not called to account by people with common sense.
The key trigger here was the use of the word "Pinnochio" I believe was directed at the ex Chairman who did so much for Swansea and the Trust. |
HJ told lies - so did Pinocchio. 🙄
As I told you in the beginning, Brian Flynn as assistant to David Leadbeater recommended Tammy Abraham to the Swans. |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.