| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday 11:22 - Apr 19 with 8712 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 13:24 - Apr 26 with 1191 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:10 - Apr 25 by Chief |
- Unfortunately the buyers (the fish) in this instance had already had their fill after gorging themselves on sellout shares and never really wanted trust shares.
- You can't force a fish to eat if it isn't hungry.
- you're obviously not trying hard enough then because there's zero value in this latest parable. |
Securing a sale for the Trust is not an obligation for others. The Trust had to secure the sale on their own. They could not achieve it. The Trust flagged many times they were reluctant sellers and this did not help them. They never said "we want to sell". They said the "we are willing to consider to offers".
Why would a buyer bother with them when others were very keen? They went through the sale talks in 2017 but they did not go well for four months. They were reluctant sellers. The buyer walked away,
I never believed the Trust wanted to sell and they did not sell. I never believed they were in any way unfairly treated and the court case collapsed. The 5% golden share probably means nothing and they should be grateful for the £500,000 good will payment. Goodwill is needed as the Trust are owned by the customers so it is good business.
Selling needs a willing buyer and seller. The buyer was ambivalent and the seller reluctant so it did not happen. If the Trust wanted to sell it would have remains my belief. |  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:44 - Apr 26 with 1181 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:24 - Apr 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Securing a sale for the Trust is not an obligation for others. The Trust had to secure the sale on their own. They could not achieve it. The Trust flagged many times they were reluctant sellers and this did not help them. They never said "we want to sell". They said the "we are willing to consider to offers".
Why would a buyer bother with them when others were very keen? They went through the sale talks in 2017 but they did not go well for four months. They were reluctant sellers. The buyer walked away,
I never believed the Trust wanted to sell and they did not sell. I never believed they were in any way unfairly treated and the court case collapsed. The 5% golden share probably means nothing and they should be grateful for the £500,000 good will payment. Goodwill is needed as the Trust are owned by the customers so it is good business.
Selling needs a willing buyer and seller. The buyer was ambivalent and the seller reluctant so it did not happen. If the Trust wanted to sell it would have remains my belief. |
- you're wrong there. Due agreements and conduct it WAS the obligation of the sellouts and Americans to engage the trust on a level playing field and that didn't happen. If it wasn't there'd have been no case or settlement. I know you don't understand law but this is simple.
- Forget the nonsense about declining previous opportunities to sell, you're making yourself very silly constantly mentioning it. It's completely irrelevant. No precedent was set. The trust never said they'd never sell under any circumstances and it was the silly of the sellouts / Americans to assume this (they didn't - this is purely a figment of your imagination). The trust informed everyone theu were open to selling as soon as they became aware of the sale. They fulfilled their duties in doing so. Enough said.
- what others were very keen? They didn't go well presumably because the Americans wouldn't bid on parity with what the sellouts received. The Americans were evidently more reluctant buyers than the trust as sellers. The Americans were prepared to go to court not to buy - the trust were prepared to go to court to force a sale. The facts speak for themselves, the proof very much in the pudding.
- if they never wanted to sell they would never instigated any sort of case. The trust knew all along that bringing a case could result in selling the shares so you're talking complete nonsense again. And the trust were obviously badly treated but you're so madly warped or stubborn to admit as much. Every other shareholder receiving a bid for the shares but the trust not being informed of these important developments until their deals were more or less complete after a year negotiation - but the trsu were not unfairly treated? Bonkers.
- yes it's a rubbish settlement decided purely because the Americans / sellouts were preoared to evade justice by fighting the case and appealing. If the trust were in no way disadvantaged why the need for a 'goodwill' payment? It was an out of court settlement - an admission of guilt. Hence the signing of NDAs and other 'concessions' legally enshrined. Such would not happen with a simple 'goodwill' payment. Soon the trust will have no members and no one will trust this board again, so no terrible business.
- correct and as amply demonstrated by every event in this saga, the Americans simply didn't want to buy the trust's shares. Not a fair price anyway. They'd decided that early on, admitting as much when they agreed to the exclude the trust (which they've admitted doing on camera). What is it about the trust stating that they were open to selling do you not understand?
The stark contrast in intentions:
THE TRUST WERE PREPARED TO GO TO COURT TO SELL
THE AMERICANS WERE PREPARED TO GO TO COURT NOT TO BUY
[Post edited 26 Apr 2022 13:49]
|  |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:03 - Apr 26 with 1153 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 13:44 - Apr 26 by Chief |
- you're wrong there. Due agreements and conduct it WAS the obligation of the sellouts and Americans to engage the trust on a level playing field and that didn't happen. If it wasn't there'd have been no case or settlement. I know you don't understand law but this is simple.
- Forget the nonsense about declining previous opportunities to sell, you're making yourself very silly constantly mentioning it. It's completely irrelevant. No precedent was set. The trust never said they'd never sell under any circumstances and it was the silly of the sellouts / Americans to assume this (they didn't - this is purely a figment of your imagination). The trust informed everyone theu were open to selling as soon as they became aware of the sale. They fulfilled their duties in doing so. Enough said.
- what others were very keen? They didn't go well presumably because the Americans wouldn't bid on parity with what the sellouts received. The Americans were evidently more reluctant buyers than the trust as sellers. The Americans were prepared to go to court not to buy - the trust were prepared to go to court to force a sale. The facts speak for themselves, the proof very much in the pudding.
- if they never wanted to sell they would never instigated any sort of case. The trust knew all along that bringing a case could result in selling the shares so you're talking complete nonsense again. And the trust were obviously badly treated but you're so madly warped or stubborn to admit as much. Every other shareholder receiving a bid for the shares but the trust not being informed of these important developments until their deals were more or less complete after a year negotiation - but the trsu were not unfairly treated? Bonkers.
- yes it's a rubbish settlement decided purely because the Americans / sellouts were preoared to evade justice by fighting the case and appealing. If the trust were in no way disadvantaged why the need for a 'goodwill' payment? It was an out of court settlement - an admission of guilt. Hence the signing of NDAs and other 'concessions' legally enshrined. Such would not happen with a simple 'goodwill' payment. Soon the trust will have no members and no one will trust this board again, so no terrible business.
- correct and as amply demonstrated by every event in this saga, the Americans simply didn't want to buy the trust's shares. Not a fair price anyway. They'd decided that early on, admitting as much when they agreed to the exclude the trust (which they've admitted doing on camera). What is it about the trust stating that they were open to selling do you not understand?
The stark contrast in intentions:
THE TRUST WERE PREPARED TO GO TO COURT TO SELL
THE AMERICANS WERE PREPARED TO GO TO COURT NOT TO BUY
[Post edited 26 Apr 2022 13:49]
|
I keep telling you selling is not easy and an obligation of someone else.
" The trust informed everyone they were open to selling as soon as they became aware of the sale. They fulfilled their duties in doing so. Enough said."
-AND? What next?
That is not the way to sell anything. They were introduced to the potential buyer with no signed agreements in place. The rest was down to them. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:03 - Apr 26 with 1126 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:03 - Apr 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I keep telling you selling is not easy and an obligation of someone else.
" The trust informed everyone they were open to selling as soon as they became aware of the sale. They fulfilled their duties in doing so. Enough said."
-AND? What next?
That is not the way to sell anything. They were introduced to the potential buyer with no signed agreements in place. The rest was down to them. |
- and that's irrelevant whether you think that or not. If the Americans wanted to buy they would have. They didn't offer the same terms as the sellouts. That was an obligation or be open to litigation.
- yes good quote, that's what I said.
- what you mean what next - that action invalidated all you bvllshit pretence about the trust not wanting to sell &the Americans should have offered terms on par with the sellouts (although by this point the trust had already been disadvantaged by having been excluded for so long already).
- there was a shareholders agreement in place. Which we know for a fact (because the Americans admitted on camera) (and Huws attempts to retrospectively invalidate it) was broken. So you're completely wrong again. No, the onus was still on the Americans to offer a decent offer or be open to litigation. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:10 - Apr 26 with 1107 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:03 - Apr 26 by Chief |
- and that's irrelevant whether you think that or not. If the Americans wanted to buy they would have. They didn't offer the same terms as the sellouts. That was an obligation or be open to litigation.
- yes good quote, that's what I said.
- what you mean what next - that action invalidated all you bvllshit pretence about the trust not wanting to sell &the Americans should have offered terms on par with the sellouts (although by this point the trust had already been disadvantaged by having been excluded for so long already).
- there was a shareholders agreement in place. Which we know for a fact (because the Americans admitted on camera) (and Huws attempts to retrospectively invalidate it) was broken. So you're completely wrong again. No, the onus was still on the Americans to offer a decent offer or be open to litigation. |
In 2015 the Trust said they would never sell. Once introduced to the US owners they reportedly pointed out that the takeover did not confirm with the existing shareholders agreement as I understand it. There was some argument as if it was valid perhaps? They were asked to sign a new SHA but probably refused.
At this point in 2016 The Trust wanted more shares not less and I recall suggested they would come to an agreement with the gifting of 4% of the clubs new shares. (worth £4m). This was rejected and legal posturing started, sale talks collapsed and the club perhaps had no valid SHA (?) which is not satisfactory. I cannot understand why they wanted to accumulate more shares while claiming to want to sell at the same time.
Six year later they have settled for £500k not £4m (1.25% of the shares in cash not 4% of the club's shares in shares.) Does that make sense?. With another £1m to come (total 3% of the shares in cash today's prices) if there is promotion.
At the end of the day it seems to be about the SHA more than anything and it was just a matter of cash as always.
No investment could occur while the legal case was not resolved I suspect. Silverstein got it done. Bravo to him. The US offer has been made and accepted. You therefore only have gripes with the Trust over the price not the sellers or buyers.
This is my summary as I understand it. It was just a matter of agreeing a price. Why it has taken 6 years is unsatisfactory for sure. I think this is a reasonable summary but I was not present so cannot be sure.
Had the 4% deal gone ahead it would be worth around £1.6m today which is a little above the proposed £1.5m (if promoted). After the CLN the 25% holding would have been diluted to under 20% not 16%. but the Trust would not have any extra voting rights in any case unless they blocked investment.
Would they have blocked investment? I reckon they would have, No Piroe no party. [Post edited 26 Apr 2022 19:11]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:52 - Apr 26 with 1088 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:10 - Apr 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
In 2015 the Trust said they would never sell. Once introduced to the US owners they reportedly pointed out that the takeover did not confirm with the existing shareholders agreement as I understand it. There was some argument as if it was valid perhaps? They were asked to sign a new SHA but probably refused.
At this point in 2016 The Trust wanted more shares not less and I recall suggested they would come to an agreement with the gifting of 4% of the clubs new shares. (worth £4m). This was rejected and legal posturing started, sale talks collapsed and the club perhaps had no valid SHA (?) which is not satisfactory. I cannot understand why they wanted to accumulate more shares while claiming to want to sell at the same time.
Six year later they have settled for £500k not £4m (1.25% of the shares in cash not 4% of the club's shares in shares.) Does that make sense?. With another £1m to come (total 3% of the shares in cash today's prices) if there is promotion.
At the end of the day it seems to be about the SHA more than anything and it was just a matter of cash as always.
No investment could occur while the legal case was not resolved I suspect. Silverstein got it done. Bravo to him. The US offer has been made and accepted. You therefore only have gripes with the Trust over the price not the sellers or buyers.
This is my summary as I understand it. It was just a matter of agreeing a price. Why it has taken 6 years is unsatisfactory for sure. I think this is a reasonable summary but I was not present so cannot be sure.
Had the 4% deal gone ahead it would be worth around £1.6m today which is a little above the proposed £1.5m (if promoted). After the CLN the 25% holding would have been diluted to under 20% not 16%. but the Trust would not have any extra voting rights in any case unless they blocked investment.
Would they have blocked investment? I reckon they would have, No Piroe no party. [Post edited 26 Apr 2022 19:11]
|
Wow. It really is difficult to fathom how someone can be so blinkered. It's really strange.
- 2015 is irrelevant. You don't assume in business. Really negligent thing to do. The circumstances in 2015 were totally different. Do you genuinely, honestly believe the Americans read 1 quote stating the trust didn't want to sell from back in 2015 and then thought ah ok we will actively exclude them at all costs in these negotiations. Don't be so twp. Don't know what that sentence about confirming something means. Makes no sense. Why would Huw try to retrospectively try to invalidate the SHA if it was already invalid? You're being twp. Again it's difficult to fathom how you manage to reach these conclusions. Yes they had every right to refuse to sign any new one.
- The trust when it was obvious the Americans and sellouts had excluded them explored the possibility of getting to 25% yes. It didn't work but may as well try. What's your point? Again how do you come to the conclusion there was no valid SHA from this!? Huw knew it was valid. Why don't you? You usually follow his lead. I've told you - because it was obvious from when the trust found out about the sale that the Americans didn't want to buy the trust's shares so they did as any competent trust does and explores the options. It's not like the trust received a full bid rejected it, asked to acquire more shares then threatened legal action.
- yes i know what they settled for.
- it was being put in a position the trust didn't want to be in and being powerless to do anything about it (besides legal action).
- I have gripes with the trust board absolutely - they've sold out just like the sellouts did by keeping the members in the dark. But ultimately this whole saga was due to the sellouts acting inappropriately, greedily and immorally. They are the real villains. Investment still hasn't occurred.
- well the Americans are entirely complicit in that. If they wanted to settle it within 6 years they should have told the sellouts to wise up and stop running from their responsibilities. The trust repeatedly attempted negotiating, mediation and then preparing a legal case. The whole time the Americans had the power to end it shiftly. Going by your logic (the only reason the trust were excluded from the sale was because the Americans guessed they didn't want to sell) - the Americans had the money all along to end it fairly all along. But decided not to.
- not sure the relevance of you bringing up the 4% deal. It was s contingency plan that didn't come to fruition.
- no idea, impossible to say. 20% is still a lot nicer than 16%. Maybe with 25% and a proper voice the Americans and Silverstein might actually have provided transparent details of the CLN. And maybe just maybe the trust would have been invited to contribute. And maybe the 800k they wouldn't have needed to spend on a legal case could have landed the club an O Reilly!? We can all wildly speculate see. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:46 - Apr 26 with 1078 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 22:52 - Apr 26 by Chief |
Wow. It really is difficult to fathom how someone can be so blinkered. It's really strange.
- 2015 is irrelevant. You don't assume in business. Really negligent thing to do. The circumstances in 2015 were totally different. Do you genuinely, honestly believe the Americans read 1 quote stating the trust didn't want to sell from back in 2015 and then thought ah ok we will actively exclude them at all costs in these negotiations. Don't be so twp. Don't know what that sentence about confirming something means. Makes no sense. Why would Huw try to retrospectively try to invalidate the SHA if it was already invalid? You're being twp. Again it's difficult to fathom how you manage to reach these conclusions. Yes they had every right to refuse to sign any new one.
- The trust when it was obvious the Americans and sellouts had excluded them explored the possibility of getting to 25% yes. It didn't work but may as well try. What's your point? Again how do you come to the conclusion there was no valid SHA from this!? Huw knew it was valid. Why don't you? You usually follow his lead. I've told you - because it was obvious from when the trust found out about the sale that the Americans didn't want to buy the trust's shares so they did as any competent trust does and explores the options. It's not like the trust received a full bid rejected it, asked to acquire more shares then threatened legal action.
- yes i know what they settled for.
- it was being put in a position the trust didn't want to be in and being powerless to do anything about it (besides legal action).
- I have gripes with the trust board absolutely - they've sold out just like the sellouts did by keeping the members in the dark. But ultimately this whole saga was due to the sellouts acting inappropriately, greedily and immorally. They are the real villains. Investment still hasn't occurred.
- well the Americans are entirely complicit in that. If they wanted to settle it within 6 years they should have told the sellouts to wise up and stop running from their responsibilities. The trust repeatedly attempted negotiating, mediation and then preparing a legal case. The whole time the Americans had the power to end it shiftly. Going by your logic (the only reason the trust were excluded from the sale was because the Americans guessed they didn't want to sell) - the Americans had the money all along to end it fairly all along. But decided not to.
- not sure the relevance of you bringing up the 4% deal. It was s contingency plan that didn't come to fruition.
- no idea, impossible to say. 20% is still a lot nicer than 16%. Maybe with 25% and a proper voice the Americans and Silverstein might actually have provided transparent details of the CLN. And maybe just maybe the trust would have been invited to contribute. And maybe the 800k they wouldn't have needed to spend on a legal case could have landed the club an O Reilly!? We can all wildly speculate see. |
Nothing was assumed. They stated their shares were not up for sale to the other owners and repeated it to the Press. BBC, WoL the Daily Mail you name it. The doubled down on it saying they would never sell. No one in the Trust contested this position before the sale. In March 2016 the US people checked. Sell Yes or No . Neither - no answer at all reportedly .
The point about the 25% is the Trust wanted more shares not less in 2016. So they wanted to buy (get for free) and sell at the same time? Not exactly logical is it?
After the sale the Shareholder agreement clearly did not apply. The reported clauses allowed no one to own 25%+ but the US people had 69%. There was a dispute. The buyers had to get on with business and not waste time.
The rules did not apply. The Trust were not minded to agree a suitable replacement and were preparing a court case and had no interest in selling in 2016. The correct thing to do in this case was block the sale and make a deal.
They went for legal case and lost and wasted 6 years of people's time. In 2016 they wanted an extra 4% of share for free as part of a settlement. They got 1.25% shares in cash instead in 2022. The payment was a fee to the Trust for the agreement of new SHA which was needed.
It was never anything more other than how much money for an agreed SHA it seems. It was not about selling shares. The club were in the Premier league in 2016. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 00:10 - Apr 27 with 1071 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 23:46 - Apr 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Nothing was assumed. They stated their shares were not up for sale to the other owners and repeated it to the Press. BBC, WoL the Daily Mail you name it. The doubled down on it saying they would never sell. No one in the Trust contested this position before the sale. In March 2016 the US people checked. Sell Yes or No . Neither - no answer at all reportedly .
The point about the 25% is the Trust wanted more shares not less in 2016. So they wanted to buy (get for free) and sell at the same time? Not exactly logical is it?
After the sale the Shareholder agreement clearly did not apply. The reported clauses allowed no one to own 25%+ but the US people had 69%. There was a dispute. The buyers had to get on with business and not waste time.
The rules did not apply. The Trust were not minded to agree a suitable replacement and were preparing a court case and had no interest in selling in 2016. The correct thing to do in this case was block the sale and make a deal.
They went for legal case and lost and wasted 6 years of people's time. In 2016 they wanted an extra 4% of share for free as part of a settlement. They got 1.25% shares in cash instead in 2022. The payment was a fee to the Trust for the agreement of new SHA which was needed.
It was never anything more other than how much money for an agreed SHA it seems. It was not about selling shares. The club were in the Premier league in 2016. |
- they may have stated that under the terms of the 2015 interest. You're then saying (and assuming) that the sellouts and Americans assumed the trust didn't want to sell. Which is a crazy leap. But your blinkered bias does lead to these preposterous scenarios. You're lying again - the US didn't 'check'. It was the trust who made it clear the day after the heard of the sale that they were open to selling. I keep telling you - the Americans weren't offering the same deal as the sellouts got. So the trust explored options which included the 25% which would have provided an alternative protection to selling. This isn't difficult to understand. Yet somehow you can't get your head around it.
- the agreement, just like any agreement could only cease to apply upon agreement with the parties involved. The trust was one of these parties who didn't agree to invalidate it. Agreements don't become void when one of the parties breaks it. Huw knew it was valid. Why else would he ask for it be invalidated? Are you on a wind up? Genuinely now, you can't really be this niave? Yea I know the buyers wanted to get on with it but somehow their due diligence failed to flag up a SHA which was no secret. The sellouts certainly knew about it. They signed the fvkin thing!
- since when do rules not apply? The rule breakers don't get to decide when rules do and don't apply. The sellouts had a year to try and renegotiate a new SHA if they weren't happy about it. They failed to do so. Poor business again. The trust literally stated in 2016 they were open to selling. You're lying again. Maybe they should have blocked the deal. But that would really have instabilised the club. They gave the Americans the chance the make things right and went to the negotiating table instead.
- the sellouts and Americans could have ended the saga years earlier but they refused to attend mediation for example which was pathetic and cowardly. A new SHA 6 years after the last one was broken is a shocking indictment of the business conduct and morality of the sellouts.
- another bizarre fantasy conclusion. How much money for an agreed SHA? What does that mean? The trust to my knowledge have never mentioned compensation to change the SHA. I very much doubt the sellouts would have offered much for that anyway. So again a strange thing to bring up. [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 0:23]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 00:47 - Apr 27 with 1049 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 00:10 - Apr 27 by Chief |
- they may have stated that under the terms of the 2015 interest. You're then saying (and assuming) that the sellouts and Americans assumed the trust didn't want to sell. Which is a crazy leap. But your blinkered bias does lead to these preposterous scenarios. You're lying again - the US didn't 'check'. It was the trust who made it clear the day after the heard of the sale that they were open to selling. I keep telling you - the Americans weren't offering the same deal as the sellouts got. So the trust explored options which included the 25% which would have provided an alternative protection to selling. This isn't difficult to understand. Yet somehow you can't get your head around it.
- the agreement, just like any agreement could only cease to apply upon agreement with the parties involved. The trust was one of these parties who didn't agree to invalidate it. Agreements don't become void when one of the parties breaks it. Huw knew it was valid. Why else would he ask for it be invalidated? Are you on a wind up? Genuinely now, you can't really be this niave? Yea I know the buyers wanted to get on with it but somehow their due diligence failed to flag up a SHA which was no secret. The sellouts certainly knew about it. They signed the fvkin thing!
- since when do rules not apply? The rule breakers don't get to decide when rules do and don't apply. The sellouts had a year to try and renegotiate a new SHA if they weren't happy about it. They failed to do so. Poor business again. The trust literally stated in 2016 they were open to selling. You're lying again. Maybe they should have blocked the deal. But that would really have instabilised the club. They gave the Americans the chance the make things right and went to the negotiating table instead.
- the sellouts and Americans could have ended the saga years earlier but they refused to attend mediation for example which was pathetic and cowardly. A new SHA 6 years after the last one was broken is a shocking indictment of the business conduct and morality of the sellouts.
- another bizarre fantasy conclusion. How much money for an agreed SHA? What does that mean? The trust to my knowledge have never mentioned compensation to change the SHA. I very much doubt the sellouts would have offered much for that anyway. So again a strange thing to bring up. [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 0:23]
|
The payment is for a new SHA. The sale went ahead in contravention of the original SHA it seems. This was the on going dispute. For the sale to go ahead the original SHA had be to be broken. The sale could not co exist with the SHA. All the other shareholders wanted a new deal the Trust did not. Words like 'protection' are meaningless. Protection means protection from investment.
The Trusts offered a £4m deal (4% free shares) in 2016 for a new SHA but that was too much. They settled for £500k in 2022. It took 6 years. Just a good old fashioned pay off no one else got. The others just sold their shares. What a waste of time and effort. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 07:55 - Apr 27 with 1016 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 00:47 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The payment is for a new SHA. The sale went ahead in contravention of the original SHA it seems. This was the on going dispute. For the sale to go ahead the original SHA had be to be broken. The sale could not co exist with the SHA. All the other shareholders wanted a new deal the Trust did not. Words like 'protection' are meaningless. Protection means protection from investment.
The Trusts offered a £4m deal (4% free shares) in 2016 for a new SHA but that was too much. They settled for £500k in 2022. It took 6 years. Just a good old fashioned pay off no one else got. The others just sold their shares. What a waste of time and effort. |
- so you say the SHA wasn't adhered to. Wow are you finally starting to get this!?
- Right so now you're also admitting the sale deception too was nothing to do with the trust allegedly saying they'd never sell, and was actually about the sellouts making sure they got their money. finally at the crux of it. Bookmarked.
- "The sale could not have co exist with the SHA" potentially. This does not mean people can break it at a time convenient to some of the signatories and then waited months before the other signatories become aware that it's been broken. Life doesn't work like that. What's the point of contracts if people can just break them whenever they want? If the Americans wanted it changed, they should have approached the trust to do. There was plenty of time to do so. And you serious with a straight face still say the trust have nothing to be unhappy about?
- if all the other shareholders wanted a new deal (not entirely sure what you're referring to) they should have engaged the trust at the earliest possible opportunity to sort it out. Knowingly trucking on (while also possibly keeping the Americans in the dark - they've claimed not to know of a SHA) was dangerous and frankly negligent.
- of course it was eventually a waste of time and effort for 500k. That's why members are not happy because this deal negotiated by the new board is so futile. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:21 - Apr 27 with 986 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 07:55 - Apr 27 by Chief |
- so you say the SHA wasn't adhered to. Wow are you finally starting to get this!?
- Right so now you're also admitting the sale deception too was nothing to do with the trust allegedly saying they'd never sell, and was actually about the sellouts making sure they got their money. finally at the crux of it. Bookmarked.
- "The sale could not have co exist with the SHA" potentially. This does not mean people can break it at a time convenient to some of the signatories and then waited months before the other signatories become aware that it's been broken. Life doesn't work like that. What's the point of contracts if people can just break them whenever they want? If the Americans wanted it changed, they should have approached the trust to do. There was plenty of time to do so. And you serious with a straight face still say the trust have nothing to be unhappy about?
- if all the other shareholders wanted a new deal (not entirely sure what you're referring to) they should have engaged the trust at the earliest possible opportunity to sort it out. Knowingly trucking on (while also possibly keeping the Americans in the dark - they've claimed not to know of a SHA) was dangerous and frankly negligent.
- of course it was eventually a waste of time and effort for 500k. That's why members are not happy because this deal negotiated by the new board is so futile. |
The SHA could not be adhered to under the circumstances of the sale. There could be no 69% owner in the format of the existing SHA (as it is reported). It was not allowed.
The contract was not suited to the new ownership arrangement.
A parable of this is your phone contract in 2005.
You had a contract with Nokia for 3G and your wife wanted a 4G with Apple. You told her to forget it as you already had a contract and you refused to change it. You told her that you would relent if she gave you an i pad.
She told to to 'get a life' and went with Apple anyway. You told her the Nokia contract was still valid and you did not turn up for mediation. After 6 years she gave you a Fitbit watch that settled the matter and you ditched the Nokia. You loved that phone and are still sore about it.
You prove to me every day the fans do not belong in the board room. [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 15:26]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 16:07 - Apr 27 with 974 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 15:21 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The SHA could not be adhered to under the circumstances of the sale. There could be no 69% owner in the format of the existing SHA (as it is reported). It was not allowed.
The contract was not suited to the new ownership arrangement.
A parable of this is your phone contract in 2005.
You had a contract with Nokia for 3G and your wife wanted a 4G with Apple. You told her to forget it as you already had a contract and you refused to change it. You told her that you would relent if she gave you an i pad.
She told to to 'get a life' and went with Apple anyway. You told her the Nokia contract was still valid and you did not turn up for mediation. After 6 years she gave you a Fitbit watch that settled the matter and you ditched the Nokia. You loved that phone and are still sore about it.
You prove to me every day the fans do not belong in the board room. [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 15:26]
|
- your first paragraph is spot on. So therefore, the sale should not have occurred in the fashion it did. This seems a Eureka moment. You finally seem to be getting it.
- unlike my wife the sellouts didn't inform the the trust they wanted out of their contract. They broke it behind their back. There was negotiation or iPad demand.
- the sellouts and Americans were the ones who didn't turn up for mediation which the trust arranged. So this scenario has zero value. You're just lying via fantasy comparison.
- the only bits relevant are the trust board accepting a Fitbit settlement (probably just a shtty standard pedometer would be a more apt comparison. And that you have in fairly nicely demonstrated how one of the parties deceived their partner who they thought they had a decent relationship with.
- how silly of me to expect professional business people to respect contracts, relationships and morals. Then the expectancy to meekly accept being deceived. Yea that's not for me, you're right. In contrast, your cuckoo land parables and fantasies I'm sure would fit right in. [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 16:09]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 16:59 - Apr 27 with 956 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 16:07 - Apr 27 by Chief |
- your first paragraph is spot on. So therefore, the sale should not have occurred in the fashion it did. This seems a Eureka moment. You finally seem to be getting it.
- unlike my wife the sellouts didn't inform the the trust they wanted out of their contract. They broke it behind their back. There was negotiation or iPad demand.
- the sellouts and Americans were the ones who didn't turn up for mediation which the trust arranged. So this scenario has zero value. You're just lying via fantasy comparison.
- the only bits relevant are the trust board accepting a Fitbit settlement (probably just a shtty standard pedometer would be a more apt comparison. And that you have in fairly nicely demonstrated how one of the parties deceived their partner who they thought they had a decent relationship with.
- how silly of me to expect professional business people to respect contracts, relationships and morals. Then the expectancy to meekly accept being deceived. Yea that's not for me, you're right. In contrast, your cuckoo land parables and fantasies I'm sure would fit right in. [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 16:09]
|
It was the Trust who did not show up for mediation according to press reports in the Daily Mail They wanted to select the the delegates of the US team bizarrely. The directors sent by Mr Levien did not match up to their satisfaction. Its a bit like Russell Martin telling AFC Bournemouth who to pick last night.
[Post edited 27 Apr 2022 17:16]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:42 - Apr 27 with 945 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 16:59 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It was the Trust who did not show up for mediation according to press reports in the Daily Mail They wanted to select the the delegates of the US team bizarrely. The directors sent by Mr Levien did not match up to their satisfaction. Its a bit like Russell Martin telling AFC Bournemouth who to pick last night.
[Post edited 27 Apr 2022 17:16]
|
The trust set up mediation and had to cancel it when the Americans owners and the sellouts all made it clear they would not attend.
Those are the facts. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:18 - Apr 27 with 926 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 17:42 - Apr 27 by Chief |
The trust set up mediation and had to cancel it when the Americans owners and the sellouts all made it clear they would not attend.
Those are the facts. |
Two American owners / directors were available and were fully authorised to cut a deal. The had no need to cancel and no right to select the other side in mediation.
It took a change of Trust management and they mediated with a director with no shares also authorised to cut a deal. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:24 - Apr 27 with 925 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:18 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Two American owners / directors were available and were fully authorised to cut a deal. The had no need to cancel and no right to select the other side in mediation.
It took a change of Trust management and they mediated with a director with no shares also authorised to cut a deal. |
- No American owners were prepared to attend. They were invited and declined to. As did all the sellouts. So with the American owners and sellouts it was pointless.
- And the claimant had every right to invite whoever they want to mediation.
- That's not mediation - that's negotiating an out of court settlement. Two different things. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:36 - Apr 27 with 919 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:24 - Apr 27 by Chief |
- No American owners were prepared to attend. They were invited and declined to. As did all the sellouts. So with the American owners and sellouts it was pointless.
- And the claimant had every right to invite whoever they want to mediation.
- That's not mediation - that's negotiating an out of court settlement. Two different things. |
American owners / current directors were available to attend and make progress in mediation. They were authorised to take decisions. The owners are not based in the UK.
The Trust were not satisfied with the people designated to mediate. More years wasted.
Mediation is the use of professionals to help in conflict resolution. Silverstein did this on his own while on holiday with his family. | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:45 - Apr 27 with 911 views | Chief |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 19:36 - Apr 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
American owners / current directors were available to attend and make progress in mediation. They were authorised to take decisions. The owners are not based in the UK.
The Trust were not satisfied with the people designated to mediate. More years wasted.
Mediation is the use of professionals to help in conflict resolution. Silverstein did this on his own while on holiday with his family. |
- As I said, the American owners wouldn't attend.
- No they weren't (rightfully) happy with representatives the American owners wanted to send. Without the sellouts and owners themselves, it was pointless.
- You're mixing up (probably deliberately) brokering a deal with the process of mediation carried out by a professional, independent mediator. Silverstein has a business relationship with one of the party's involved, so he was far from independent, let alone professional. He approached the new trust board with an offer. That's very different from mediation. But you know that. [Post edited 27 Apr 2022 19:47]
| |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 21:40 - Apr 27 with 892 views | Brynmill_Jack |
We could have done with him on the bench yesterday |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 05:57 - Apr 29 with 845 views | vetchonian |
well it seems KoL is learning from being on the first team bench as the u23s surrendered a 2goal lead to snafch a draw from the jaws of victory at Wigan | |
| |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 14:34 - Apr 29 with 821 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| what was Ko L doing on the bench yesterday on 05:57 - Apr 29 by vetchonian |
well it seems KoL is learning from being on the first team bench as the u23s surrendered a 2goal lead to snafch a draw from the jaws of victory at Wigan |
Abdullai was sent off to be fair. It is true KO'L teams have been playing OK but getting too many draws.
The likes of Jacob Jones, Ludvigsen, Cameron Evans, Eriksen and Rushesha have been told to play out from the back. If they cannot perfect it they are no use to Swansea city.
The academy should have this ingrained from the age of 15. If they are to make mistakes in their careers this is the place to make them and correct.
All Swansea's underage teams start badly and gradually improve it seems. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.