| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday 11:22 - Apr 19 with 8710 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 20:23 - Apr 21 with 1181 views | Chief |
| 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. |
- pity Huw and the other sellouts didn't abide by this moral code you speak of.
- well he did lie by saying he was at meetings when he wasn't, so the term seems apt to me. |  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 20:25 - Apr 21 with 1171 views | Chief |
| 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. |
- They had the right to the money had they satisfied certain conditions. Which they didn't. So technically no, they weren't entitled to it. Had they carried out their contractual obligations sufficiently, they would have been. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:09 - Apr 22 with 1111 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 20:25 - Apr 21 by Chief |
- They had the right to the money had they satisfied certain conditions. Which they didn't. So technically no, they weren't entitled to it. Had they carried out their contractual obligations sufficiently, they would have been. |
Chief you are trapped in a box of rules and regulations and fake moral code probably based on particular political stance or other.
The Trust is a hugely successful organisation not because of its people but because of the people they associated themselves to. They did phenomenally well by doing nothing. They started going wrong when they needed to take action. In 2015 "do nothing" for the first time was the wrong thing. They simply had to sell at least half of their shares. They failed. They did not want to sell and did not want anyone else to sell either I suspect.
I suspect the Share holders agreement could not co exist with the sale. It did not allow for a 69% holding by a single shareholder.
It was in effect a limiting "exoskeleton". The crab needed to grow and shed the SHA exoskeleton. The SCST insisted that they should use the old shell and dragged it along with the crab for 6 years pointlessly. An act reflecting a poor understanding of their purpose. Sometimes things just have to get done. People need to understand this.
The Convertible loan note and 5% golden share is another shedding of the exoskeleton they have agreed to. The crab needs to grow.
You pray at the altar of the old shell. Nothing as queer as folk. I hope my crab analogy helps you to understand and come to terms with the natural world and its ways. |  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:37 - Apr 22 with 1087 views | Treforys_Jack |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:09 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Chief you are trapped in a box of rules and regulations and fake moral code probably based on particular political stance or other.
The Trust is a hugely successful organisation not because of its people but because of the people they associated themselves to. They did phenomenally well by doing nothing. They started going wrong when they needed to take action. In 2015 "do nothing" for the first time was the wrong thing. They simply had to sell at least half of their shares. They failed. They did not want to sell and did not want anyone else to sell either I suspect.
I suspect the Share holders agreement could not co exist with the sale. It did not allow for a 69% holding by a single shareholder.
It was in effect a limiting "exoskeleton". The crab needed to grow and shed the SHA exoskeleton. The SCST insisted that they should use the old shell and dragged it along with the crab for 6 years pointlessly. An act reflecting a poor understanding of their purpose. Sometimes things just have to get done. People need to understand this.
The Convertible loan note and 5% golden share is another shedding of the exoskeleton they have agreed to. The crab needs to grow.
You pray at the altar of the old shell. Nothing as queer as folk. I hope my crab analogy helps you to understand and come to terms with the natural world and its ways. |
 , you're a nutter fair play. |  | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:46 - Apr 22 with 1083 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:09 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Chief you are trapped in a box of rules and regulations and fake moral code probably based on particular political stance or other.
The Trust is a hugely successful organisation not because of its people but because of the people they associated themselves to. They did phenomenally well by doing nothing. They started going wrong when they needed to take action. In 2015 "do nothing" for the first time was the wrong thing. They simply had to sell at least half of their shares. They failed. They did not want to sell and did not want anyone else to sell either I suspect.
I suspect the Share holders agreement could not co exist with the sale. It did not allow for a 69% holding by a single shareholder.
It was in effect a limiting "exoskeleton". The crab needed to grow and shed the SHA exoskeleton. The SCST insisted that they should use the old shell and dragged it along with the crab for 6 years pointlessly. An act reflecting a poor understanding of their purpose. Sometimes things just have to get done. People need to understand this.
The Convertible loan note and 5% golden share is another shedding of the exoskeleton they have agreed to. The crab needs to grow.
You pray at the altar of the old shell. Nothing as queer as folk. I hope my crab analogy helps you to understand and come to terms with the natural world and its ways. |
- yes how silly of me to expect laws, rules and regulations to followed and morals to be respected. Whats this got to do with politics?
- how or why would a supporters trust sell half their shares to people they thought were unfit to the run the club in 2015? Potential buyers who never made any official bids. And you think selling half their shares to unsuitable prospective owners would make a Supporters trust a successful entity. Think about that and reflect on how utterly bonkers that notion is.
- you obviously suspect incorrectly or they wouldn't have courted any potential buyers ever. And they wouldn't have ever signed it.
- if they wanted to remove them from the SHA they should have taken steps to renegotiate it before accepting any bids then. Not pretend it doesn't exist then try and get it retrospectively invalided like a bunch of cowboys. Laughable way to conduct business.
- you keep your crabs to yourself. I want nothing to do with your crabs. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:47 - Apr 22 with 1082 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:37 - Apr 22 by Treforys_Jack |
, you're a nutter fair play. |
The use of analogies helps people understand stuff. Chief bangs on about an document he has never seen which had outgrown its value. Agreements must come to an end at some point when they are no long valid especially if circumstances change. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:54 - Apr 22 with 1079 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:46 - Apr 22 by Chief |
- yes how silly of me to expect laws, rules and regulations to followed and morals to be respected. Whats this got to do with politics?
- how or why would a supporters trust sell half their shares to people they thought were unfit to the run the club in 2015? Potential buyers who never made any official bids. And you think selling half their shares to unsuitable prospective owners would make a Supporters trust a successful entity. Think about that and reflect on how utterly bonkers that notion is.
- you obviously suspect incorrectly or they wouldn't have courted any potential buyers ever. And they wouldn't have ever signed it.
- if they wanted to remove them from the SHA they should have taken steps to renegotiate it before accepting any bids then. Not pretend it doesn't exist then try and get it retrospectively invalided like a bunch of cowboys. Laughable way to conduct business.
- you keep your crabs to yourself. I want nothing to do with your crabs. |
The Trust position was 'no negotiation'. They were happy with the status quo. The other owners cannot work at the Trust's pace. They have just spent 6 years getting absolutely nowhere and £400,000 out of pocket. (repaid by the sellers? for them out of goodwill).
The Swansea Trust is probably equivalent to the Wrexham Trust. Good, honest hard working people. They however cannot run a football club by moving at a snail's pace and fudging decisions that needed to be made. Mid table in the national league They gave a away their club to US and Canadian film stars. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:20 - Apr 22 with 1068 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:47 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The use of analogies helps people understand stuff. Chief bangs on about an document he has never seen which had outgrown its value. Agreements must come to an end at some point when they are no long valid especially if circumstances change. |
- I assume you've never seen this document either? But you somehow know it had outgrown it's value?
- agreement mustn't always come to an end but when one-side wants to bring it to an end, it should be agreed through the proper channels. Agreements shouldn't be knowingly broken.
- the agreement was still valid - that's why Jenkins tried to get it invalidated! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:31 - Apr 22 with 1062 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 12:54 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust position was 'no negotiation'. They were happy with the status quo. The other owners cannot work at the Trust's pace. They have just spent 6 years getting absolutely nowhere and £400,000 out of pocket. (repaid by the sellers? for them out of goodwill).
The Swansea Trust is probably equivalent to the Wrexham Trust. Good, honest hard working people. They however cannot run a football club by moving at a snail's pace and fudging decisions that needed to be made. Mid table in the national league They gave a away their club to US and Canadian film stars. |
- the trust met with Noell and Moores. If there was no negotiation to be had, they wouldn't have bothered, so that's patently false.
- the owners could absolutely work at the trust's pace. They'd been negotiating for a year reportedly before the trust found out. So more nonsense.
- whether you think they work at a snails pace is irrelevant. If they'd been informed at least then that would ar least show some adherence to agreements and processes. Not sure what you think the sellouts needed to wait on the trust for? The sellouts had years to approach the subject of changing/updating/nulling the SHA but never did. You're defending the indefensible.
- not entirely of the relevancy of the Wrexham comparison seeing as they are in the NL and we were in the PL. Realistically how much do you think they'd have got anyway? Silly comparison. Plus they're high profile super visible mainstream celebrities who've fully indulged themselves and are constantly co branding. Awful publicity if they let Wrexham fail. While our owners enjoy lurking in the shadows. The famous ones didn't even want people to know they were involved. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:39 - Apr 22 with 1046 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:20 - Apr 22 by Chief |
- I assume you've never seen this document either? But you somehow know it had outgrown it's value?
- agreement mustn't always come to an end but when one-side wants to bring it to an end, it should be agreed through the proper channels. Agreements shouldn't be knowingly broken.
- the agreement was still valid - that's why Jenkins tried to get it invalidated! |
Neither of us has seen it. It is clearly now no longer valid.
Assuming forum comments are correct from insiders one of the rules was that no single owner could have more than 25% holding. Under these terms the SHA could not co exist with the sale where the US had 69%.
The sale cannot go ahead under the terms of the existing SHA. (It was limiting development). My king crab analogy.
The SCST could have presumably blocked or delayed the sale. There was an impasse. The impasse should have been dealt with in 2016. Extensive discussions were held and reported on in 2016. (proper channels) but the impasse remained. Mr Silverstein help end the impasse.
Under your mantra there would be no sale. Swansea would be in league 1 or 2. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 14:43]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 16:36 - Apr 22 with 1024 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:39 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Neither of us has seen it. It is clearly now no longer valid.
Assuming forum comments are correct from insiders one of the rules was that no single owner could have more than 25% holding. Under these terms the SHA could not co exist with the sale where the US had 69%.
The sale cannot go ahead under the terms of the existing SHA. (It was limiting development). My king crab analogy.
The SCST could have presumably blocked or delayed the sale. There was an impasse. The impasse should have been dealt with in 2016. Extensive discussions were held and reported on in 2016. (proper channels) but the impasse remained. Mr Silverstein help end the impasse.
Under your mantra there would be no sale. Swansea would be in league 1 or 2. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 14:43]
|
- it's not valid anymore no, it's validity only destroyed by the recent deal. It didn't just randomly expire at a time of the sellouts choosing.
- again, if they didn't think they could sell with the SHA as it stood they should have tried to renegotiate it. Such things can always be negotiated out should one side by suitably compensated. They had years to try and do this. There is no excuse. They acted out of greed and in a non compliant manner. But I see again you do speculate as to what the agreement stated when you get think it suits your agenda , but completely pretend it was an irrelevance other times.
- there was no impasse. For there to be some sort of impasse all sides would be aware of the full picture. That wasn't the case so wrong choice of vocabulary. When the trust did know, they didn't block or delay, so yea another nuisance point. Silverstein and a weak board who betrayed the members yes.
- you mean to say that if Huw the footballing mastermind was calling the shots we'd have been relegated at least once!? | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:42 - Apr 22 with 1008 views | Treforys_Jack |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 16:36 - Apr 22 by Chief |
- it's not valid anymore no, it's validity only destroyed by the recent deal. It didn't just randomly expire at a time of the sellouts choosing.
- again, if they didn't think they could sell with the SHA as it stood they should have tried to renegotiate it. Such things can always be negotiated out should one side by suitably compensated. They had years to try and do this. There is no excuse. They acted out of greed and in a non compliant manner. But I see again you do speculate as to what the agreement stated when you get think it suits your agenda , but completely pretend it was an irrelevance other times.
- there was no impasse. For there to be some sort of impasse all sides would be aware of the full picture. That wasn't the case so wrong choice of vocabulary. When the trust did know, they didn't block or delay, so yea another nuisance point. Silverstein and a weak board who betrayed the members yes.
- you mean to say that if Huw the footballing mastermind was calling the shots we'd have been relegated at least once!? |
Never seen someone "owned" and schooled so many times yet just keep on going blindly. I admire his persistence and single minded belief he's right, despite the many times chief has proved he's not. | | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:58 - Apr 22 with 1002 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:42 - Apr 22 by Treforys_Jack |
Never seen someone "owned" and schooled so many times yet just keep on going blindly. I admire his persistence and single minded belief he's right, despite the many times chief has proved he's not. |
The proof is there was no court case. Not many suggest they got a good result. You and you chums are dim and ended up spending 6 years and £400k for next to nothing. You were "sold a pup". No sign you have learned anything. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 17:59]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:28 - Apr 22 with 993 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:58 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The proof is there was no court case. Not many suggest they got a good result. You and you chums are dim and ended up spending 6 years and £400k for next to nothing. You were "sold a pup". No sign you have learned anything. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 17:59]
|
The proof is that the sellouts settled, admitting guilt.
If they had acted in this manner against a body with more resources they'd be in deep trouble. Purely down to finance that real justice wasn't administered (and a malleable trust board) | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:31 - Apr 22 with 990 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:42 - Apr 22 by Treforys_Jack |
Never seen someone "owned" and schooled so many times yet just keep on going blindly. I admire his persistence and single minded belief he's right, despite the many times chief has proved he's not. |
Yea it's bizarre that threads are still twisted towards this subject and the same old myths are peddled out and then corrected by myself and other board members. Struggling to see why this propaganda campaign needs to continue now that the deal has been completed. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:48 - Apr 22 with 984 views | jasper_T |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:31 - Apr 22 by Chief |
Yea it's bizarre that threads are still twisted towards this subject and the same old myths are peddled out and then corrected by myself and other board members. Struggling to see why this propaganda campaign needs to continue now that the deal has been completed. |
You don't half play your part in twisting them back to the same old topics. At the slightest mention of the Trust by him you're on it like a flash.
Stick him on ignore and save the rest of us some scrolling. | | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:17 - Apr 22 with 974 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:48 - Apr 22 by jasper_T |
You don't half play your part in twisting them back to the same old topics. At the slightest mention of the Trust by him you're on it like a flash.
Stick him on ignore and save the rest of us some scrolling. |
I merely reply when there are things to correct (which admittedly is often when the propaganda bot is involved).
I never instigate it. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:40 - Apr 22 with 963 views | jasper_T |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:17 - Apr 22 by Chief |
I merely reply when there are things to correct (which admittedly is often when the propaganda bot is involved).
I never instigate it. |
As I've explained before, every good propaganda campaign needs signal boosters/enablers who feel the need to engage with what it's saying and make a big, distracting spectacle out of every little thing. You're not performing a public service by rushing in to correct someone you don't even think is arguing in good faith. If you truly believe it's a "propaganda bot" simply don't interact with it. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 19:41]
| | | |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:43 - Apr 22 with 957 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:40 - Apr 22 by jasper_T |
As I've explained before, every good propaganda campaign needs signal boosters/enablers who feel the need to engage with what it's saying and make a big, distracting spectacle out of every little thing. You're not performing a public service by rushing in to correct someone you don't even think is arguing in good faith. If you truly believe it's a "propaganda bot" simply don't interact with it. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 19:41]
|
Yea it's cool nickname I made up Jasper. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 19:44]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:17 - Apr 22 with 926 views | vetchonian |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 18:44 - Apr 20 by KeithHaynes |
How would you have managed it Chief, genuine question. |
I have said this before and so repeat myself...why didn't the Chairman gave a proper conversation with the majority shareholder ie the Trust and discuss the situation...and then work out a strategy for the way forward rather than adopt a strategy which lined the pickets of the sellouts | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:41 - Apr 22 with 909 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:17 - Apr 22 by vetchonian |
I have said this before and so repeat myself...why didn't the Chairman gave a proper conversation with the majority shareholder ie the Trust and discuss the situation...and then work out a strategy for the way forward rather than adopt a strategy which lined the pickets of the sellouts |
This is why. The Trust shares were not up for sale. It was explicitly stated. The strategy was to increase the shareholding not cash in while in the Premier League. The conversations were held I would assume. It was no secret that buyers were interested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
If it was not the case then this statement should have been corrected. It was not corrected in 2015 unless someone can prove otherwise. The members were perfectly happy with this strategy and did not press for change in strategy. They got what they voted for. After this time Fabianski was picking the ball out of his net quite often. It is football. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 22:04]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:49 - Apr 22 with 905 views | vetchonian |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:41 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is why. The Trust shares were not up for sale. It was explicitly stated. The strategy was to increase the shareholding not cash in while in the Premier League. The conversations were held I would assume. It was no secret that buyers were interested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
If it was not the case then this statement should have been corrected. It was not corrected in 2015 unless someone can prove otherwise. The members were perfectly happy with this strategy and did not press for change in strategy. They got what they voted for. After this time Fabianski was picking the ball out of his net quite often. It is football. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 22:04]
|
bullsh1t and you know it
where was the collaboration between the majority shareholders and the "managing " shareholders to explain why there was a need to sell ..what about investigating other options for funding....as has been said the Trust scuppered the sale to Moores et al so a secret approach was adopted ...HJ gas found to be guilty if falsifying Board meeting minutes improper practise re dismissal of directors in Penney etc yet you still hid himbup as a paragon of virtue | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:09 - Apr 22 with 896 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:41 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is why. The Trust shares were not up for sale. It was explicitly stated. The strategy was to increase the shareholding not cash in while in the Premier League. The conversations were held I would assume. It was no secret that buyers were interested.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
If it was not the case then this statement should have been corrected. It was not corrected in 2015 unless someone can prove otherwise. The members were perfectly happy with this strategy and did not press for change in strategy. They got what they voted for. After this time Fabianski was picking the ball out of his net quite often. It is football. [Post edited 22 Apr 2022 22:04]
|
Again, and I know you're being deliberately twp on this but I'll repeat: ignorance and assumptions do not work in law and business. They evidently assumed incorrectly if this was their thinking (which it wasn't) which is again a terrible way to conduct business. No businessman would ever assume that someone wouldn't want to sell something and then not approach them because the prospective sellers stated a year previously, under differing circumstances that they didn't want to sell.
But you're making this up anyway, the sellouts or Americans have never once cited this as the reason they colluded in the deception. Even earlier in this thread you've said it's because thru frightened of the trust scaring them off.
I've been asking to you this question for years:
If they were all so confident that the trust didn't want to sell, then why weren't they consulted at the same time as everyone else? If they were convinced the trust would not sell anyway, what harm could it have done?
Completely and utterly flawed excuse. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:30 - Apr 22 with 878 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:49 - Apr 22 by vetchonian |
bullsh1t and you know it
where was the collaboration between the majority shareholders and the "managing " shareholders to explain why there was a need to sell ..what about investigating other options for funding....as has been said the Trust scuppered the sale to Moores et al so a secret approach was adopted ...HJ gas found to be guilty if falsifying Board meeting minutes improper practise re dismissal of directors in Penney etc yet you still hid himbup as a paragon of virtue |
The old Board were in charge for 15 years. Business is tough and regulation onerous. The last board was magnificent and gave the Trust a 10,000% return on their investment. I cannot for the life of me understand why they were unhappy.
I would be surprised if there were many companies in the UK with a spotless corporate governance record. The Court understood this. Is that the worst you can find? Birch had the full squad in kit standing in front of a BLM logo and put in on the website. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:42 - Apr 22 with 874 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:30 - Apr 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The old Board were in charge for 15 years. Business is tough and regulation onerous. The last board was magnificent and gave the Trust a 10,000% return on their investment. I cannot for the life of me understand why they were unhappy.
I would be surprised if there were many companies in the UK with a spotless corporate governance record. The Court understood this. Is that the worst you can find? Birch had the full squad in kit standing in front of a BLM logo and put in on the website. |
- showing your complete blindness to the situation. The fact they did betray the trust after the good relationship they had which lead to success makes it worse.
- wow so you do admit they didn't carry out their duties in a compliant manner then? So just because some other companies don't act professionally, this excuses the sellouts? Don't be silly. What court understood that!? What court would understand that!? None. More nonsense. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.