| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust 12:20 - Oct 5 with 1243 views | waynekerr55 |
Would Moores et al. been any worse?
I suppose that's irrelevant given that the heroes who are now villains who kept you out of the loop in discussions. Food for thought though. |  |
| |  |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 12:54 - Oct 5 with 1203 views | Uxbridge |
Well, who knows.
The two situations were very different. The first one came in full sight, the Trust was engaged, had discussions with the potential buyers and the Trust could actually perform due diligence on them. There was also discussion on buying the Trust's stake. It fell over in the end of course, quite possibly because the Trust could help ensure that any buyers were doing it if in the interests of the club.
Pretty much the opposite of now really, in many ways. However, I think the main difference in the last two years is that heads were clearly turnde ... the status quo was never a viable option.
That is why, IMO anyway, the Trust had (and indeed has) to try and make this work. When the choice is between a board who would sell to anyone (as we've been by the complete lack of due diligence in both cases) and buyers who at least want to be here, the only real path open to the Trust is to try and make it work with the new parties and, if red flags come up, try and do something about it.
So, to summarise, we don't know for certain that Yanks v1.0 would have been bad for the club, and we don't know that Yanks v2.0 will be either. There's been no asset stripping to date, as far as we can see anyway. What we do know is that the lipservice paid in terms of promising to engage with the Trust has been shown up for what it is so far, and if they truly want to work with the Trust then they need to up their game significantly. |  |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:09 - Oct 5 with 1091 views | costalotta |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 12:54 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
Well, who knows.
The two situations were very different. The first one came in full sight, the Trust was engaged, had discussions with the potential buyers and the Trust could actually perform due diligence on them. There was also discussion on buying the Trust's stake. It fell over in the end of course, quite possibly because the Trust could help ensure that any buyers were doing it if in the interests of the club.
Pretty much the opposite of now really, in many ways. However, I think the main difference in the last two years is that heads were clearly turnde ... the status quo was never a viable option.
That is why, IMO anyway, the Trust had (and indeed has) to try and make this work. When the choice is between a board who would sell to anyone (as we've been by the complete lack of due diligence in both cases) and buyers who at least want to be here, the only real path open to the Trust is to try and make it work with the new parties and, if red flags come up, try and do something about it.
So, to summarise, we don't know for certain that Yanks v1.0 would have been bad for the club, and we don't know that Yanks v2.0 will be either. There's been no asset stripping to date, as far as we can see anyway. What we do know is that the lipservice paid in terms of promising to engage with the Trust has been shown up for what it is so far, and if they truly want to work with the Trust then they need to up their game significantly. |
Fully behind what the Trust is doing at the moment as we all need to stick together at this time. But, after reading Phil's mail 2 days ago I am concerned a little after reading your post.
Phil alluded that thing were gather pace and that we were close to doing what we need to do. At least that what i took form it.
But, in your post you allude " the only real path open to the Trust is to try and make it work with the new parties and, if red flags come up, try and do something about it"
I thought that boat had sailed some time ago anyway, then again after reading Phils post it sort of conformed it, at least in mind. Now after your's I'm not sure what to think? I find this concerning as the gloves are off and that needs to be recognised. THEY DO NOT WANT TO WORK WITH ANYONE FROM THE TRUST. I'm sorry don't mean to shout I'm just very frustrated.
By the way I do accept that the Trust have to work with the owners and have a relationship that affords that. But, not the one that is now being portrayed in public. Today's TS bullsh*t has again an alienating effect. Davillian was right and this looks like its going to get a lot worse.
We need to take our club back and for god sake not with the bunch of c**nts that sold it off. [Post edited 5 Oct 2016 14:15]
|  | | |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:13 - Oct 5 with 1078 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 12:54 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
Well, who knows.
The two situations were very different. The first one came in full sight, the Trust was engaged, had discussions with the potential buyers and the Trust could actually perform due diligence on them. There was also discussion on buying the Trust's stake. It fell over in the end of course, quite possibly because the Trust could help ensure that any buyers were doing it if in the interests of the club.
Pretty much the opposite of now really, in many ways. However, I think the main difference in the last two years is that heads were clearly turnde ... the status quo was never a viable option.
That is why, IMO anyway, the Trust had (and indeed has) to try and make this work. When the choice is between a board who would sell to anyone (as we've been by the complete lack of due diligence in both cases) and buyers who at least want to be here, the only real path open to the Trust is to try and make it work with the new parties and, if red flags come up, try and do something about it.
So, to summarise, we don't know for certain that Yanks v1.0 would have been bad for the club, and we don't know that Yanks v2.0 will be either. There's been no asset stripping to date, as far as we can see anyway. What we do know is that the lipservice paid in terms of promising to engage with the Trust has been shown up for what it is so far, and if they truly want to work with the Trust then they need to up their game significantly. |
To pick up on one line, you say 'if they truly want to work with the Trust'.
Umm - they don't. They have proved that on the purchase of the club and the change of manager. How many more times do they need to prove it? |  | | |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:15 - Oct 5 with 1064 views | costalotta |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:13 - Oct 5 by londonlisa2001 |
To pick up on one line, you say 'if they truly want to work with the Trust'.
Umm - they don't. They have proved that on the purchase of the club and the change of manager. How many more times do they need to prove it? |
Again Lisa, much better put than I.
Its as obvious as night follows day! | | | |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:21 - Oct 5 with 1042 views | swancity |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 12:54 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
Well, who knows.
The two situations were very different. The first one came in full sight, the Trust was engaged, had discussions with the potential buyers and the Trust could actually perform due diligence on them. There was also discussion on buying the Trust's stake. It fell over in the end of course, quite possibly because the Trust could help ensure that any buyers were doing it if in the interests of the club.
Pretty much the opposite of now really, in many ways. However, I think the main difference in the last two years is that heads were clearly turnde ... the status quo was never a viable option.
That is why, IMO anyway, the Trust had (and indeed has) to try and make this work. When the choice is between a board who would sell to anyone (as we've been by the complete lack of due diligence in both cases) and buyers who at least want to be here, the only real path open to the Trust is to try and make it work with the new parties and, if red flags come up, try and do something about it.
So, to summarise, we don't know for certain that Yanks v1.0 would have been bad for the club, and we don't know that Yanks v2.0 will be either. There's been no asset stripping to date, as far as we can see anyway. What we do know is that the lipservice paid in terms of promising to engage with the Trust has been shown up for what it is so far, and if they truly want to work with the Trust then they need to up their game significantly. |
You don't seem to understand that they most clearly don't want to work alongside the Trust. So it's the Trust that now needs to up its game significantly which I'm sure they will. They have to. And I'm sure things will be a lot clearer after they have sought legal advice. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:28 - Oct 5 with 1013 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:13 - Oct 5 by londonlisa2001 |
To pick up on one line, you say 'if they truly want to work with the Trust'.
Umm - they don't. They have proved that on the purchase of the club and the change of manager. How many more times do they need to prove it? |
Oh, they don't need to prove that. And you're misinterpreting what I meant there, or what I think, which I suspect is more hawkish than you.
However, at this exact moment in time, they have a majority stake and the Trust has 21%. It is in their power to completely restore that relationship. Do they have the appetite to do that? I could only speculate, and me speculating on here might not be too helpful. | |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:29 - Oct 5 with 1007 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:21 - Oct 5 by swancity |
You don't seem to understand that they most clearly don't want to work alongside the Trust. So it's the Trust that now needs to up its game significantly which I'm sure they will. They have to. And I'm sure things will be a lot clearer after they have sought legal advice. |
The Trust have had legal advice for quite some time. If anyone thinks that isn't the case then they're way off the mark. | |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:33 - Oct 5 with 991 views | costalotta |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:28 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
Oh, they don't need to prove that. And you're misinterpreting what I meant there, or what I think, which I suspect is more hawkish than you.
However, at this exact moment in time, they have a majority stake and the Trust has 21%. It is in their power to completely restore that relationship. Do they have the appetite to do that? I could only speculate, and me speculating on here might not be too helpful. |
But you said the only real path open to the Trust is to make it work. How can that be the case if they don't want to.It takes two to fecking tango, right?
I think this is why a large portion of posters on here (and fans elsewhere) are venting their frustration of the Trust.
I sincerely hope you are keeping you cards close to you chest and that you didn't really believe what you wrote. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:37 - Oct 5 with 971 views | costalotta |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:29 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
The Trust have had legal advice for quite some time. If anyone thinks that isn't the case then they're way off the mark. |
I don't think anyone thinks that.
But as you know, some you win and some you don't and much depends on the expertise of those giving the advice. After all, there's legal advice, and then there's Legal Advice. | | | |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:41 - Oct 5 with 951 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:33 - Oct 5 by costalotta |
But you said the only real path open to the Trust is to make it work. How can that be the case if they don't want to.It takes two to fecking tango, right?
I think this is why a large portion of posters on here (and fans elsewhere) are venting their frustration of the Trust.
I sincerely hope you are keeping you cards close to you chest and that you didn't really believe what you wrote. |
Well, given that I've said on here many times that there are a lot of things I can't say, I'd hoped that was self-feckin-evident. But hey ho.
[Post edited 5 Oct 2016 14:42]
| |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:49 - Oct 5 with 918 views | costalotta |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:41 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
Well, given that I've said on here many times that there are a lot of things I can't say, I'd hoped that was self-feckin-evident. But hey ho.
[Post edited 5 Oct 2016 14:42]
|
Yes that is right.
But you did say it Ux. And that is the point I am picking you up on, like one or two others on here.
Im sure you already know that people respect and believe what you say Ux so in keeping with your previous posts maybe you should not have said that, if it didn't need saying, and if it wasn't true. | | | |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:55 - Oct 5 with 895 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:49 - Oct 5 by costalotta |
Yes that is right.
But you did say it Ux. And that is the point I am picking you up on, like one or two others on here.
Im sure you already know that people respect and believe what you say Ux so in keeping with your previous posts maybe you should not have said that, if it didn't need saying, and if it wasn't true. |
I probably shouldn't say anything to be honest. And then that'd be picked over.
Fact is I can't say what I want to say in terms of specific actions that are being taken, I can only speak in general principles. And as a general principle the Trust has to make the situation work in the interests of the Trust, members and fans. You seem to think my idea of making things work is bending over and letting the Yanks have a good run up.
If that sounds like I'm pissed off, it's probably because I am, with the whole fecking thing. The sooner all this comes to a head the better. | |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:59 - Oct 5 with 873 views | swancity |
My impression is that the Trust may be out of their depth. That's not a criticism but an observation from the outside. With that in mind the new owners seem to think that they can cast the Trust to one side like a two penny rabbit.
That isn't the case. The fans live to fight another day. But I sense it will be a fight. And only with top legal backing and I mean top legal advice can the battle be won. I'm sure it's all in hand as we speak. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:05 - Oct 5 with 855 views | waynekerr55 |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:59 - Oct 5 by swancity |
My impression is that the Trust may be out of their depth. That's not a criticism but an observation from the outside. With that in mind the new owners seem to think that they can cast the Trust to one side like a two penny rabbit.
That isn't the case. The fans live to fight another day. But I sense it will be a fight. And only with top legal backing and I mean top legal advice can the battle be won. I'm sure it's all in hand as we speak. |
Top legal advice? You do realise who's involved with the trust, don't you? | |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:08 - Oct 5 with 834 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:05 - Oct 5 by waynekerr55 |
Top legal advice? You do realise who's involved with the trust, don't you? |
Shaky of The Bailey? |  |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:08 - Oct 5 with 833 views | costalotta |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:55 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
I probably shouldn't say anything to be honest. And then that'd be picked over.
Fact is I can't say what I want to say in terms of specific actions that are being taken, I can only speak in general principles. And as a general principle the Trust has to make the situation work in the interests of the Trust, members and fans. You seem to think my idea of making things work is bending over and letting the Yanks have a good run up.
If that sounds like I'm pissed off, it's probably because I am, with the whole fecking thing. The sooner all this comes to a head the better. |
If there's reasons to ensure cards are kept very close to the chest as they are now then that is fine. But it shouldn't stop communication. We all know you and the others are between a rock and a hard place right now and that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. But that cannot be helped at this moment, your position means you need thick skin.
The post in question seemed when i read it to allude that we want to be friends and work together and whilst that is an ideal scenario its clearly not the case. And that is in the public domain for everyone who has any sense to see. It is what it is. Anyway, i don't want to argue with you.. I want to support you.
Phils post the other day did a lot to demonstrate that we have a plan. That is good enough for me at the moment and I am with you guys 100%. | | | |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:09 - Oct 5 with 832 views | swancity |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:05 - Oct 5 by waynekerr55 |
Top legal advice? You do realise who's involved with the trust, don't you? |
No I dont, do tell | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:09 - Oct 5 with 827 views | costalotta |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:08 - Oct 5 by monmouth |
Shaky of The Bailey? |
Brilliant! | | | |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:14 - Oct 5 with 812 views | waynekerr55 |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:09 - Oct 5 by swancity |
No I dont, do tell |
Do some research... | |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:21 - Oct 5 with 789 views | Loyal |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:14 - Oct 5 by waynekerr55 |
Do some research... |
I would say the trust is very well advised. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:37 - Oct 5 with 733 views | waynekerr55 |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:21 - Oct 5 by Loyal |
I would say the trust is very well advised. |
The letters "PwC" for one... | |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:40 - Oct 5 with 722 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 14:28 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
Oh, they don't need to prove that. And you're misinterpreting what I meant there, or what I think, which I suspect is more hawkish than you.
However, at this exact moment in time, they have a majority stake and the Trust has 21%. It is in their power to completely restore that relationship. Do they have the appetite to do that? I could only speculate, and me speculating on here might not be too helpful. |
Lol.
Be difficult to be more hawkish than me on this.
But I agree with your non speculation. | | | |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 16:57 - Oct 5 with 620 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:37 - Oct 5 by waynekerr55 |
The letters "PwC" for one... |
That chancer? Pfft.
Sorry, thought you knew I was Shaky 
Anyway, the Trust is very well advised. Far more qualified than the likes of me, thankfully for us all. All scenarios have been worked through, and advice taken as required etc. | |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 17:03 - Oct 5 with 605 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 15:08 - Oct 5 by costalotta |
If there's reasons to ensure cards are kept very close to the chest as they are now then that is fine. But it shouldn't stop communication. We all know you and the others are between a rock and a hard place right now and that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. But that cannot be helped at this moment, your position means you need thick skin.
The post in question seemed when i read it to allude that we want to be friends and work together and whilst that is an ideal scenario its clearly not the case. And that is in the public domain for everyone who has any sense to see. It is what it is. Anyway, i don't want to argue with you.. I want to support you.
Phils post the other day did a lot to demonstrate that we have a plan. That is good enough for me at the moment and I am with you guys 100%. |
Well, ignoring the digs about a thin skin (I'd have flounced off long ago if that was the case .. if one thing this whole thing has taught me it's to develop a hide thicker than Taylor), there's definitely a plan .... which is very much to get the best people available to work through all possible options and, once exhausted, take the best option available. And if that one doesn't work, take the next one etc. Which pretty much sums up the last few months in many ways.
I get the frustration of not knowing. The problem the Trust has regarding communication is what can be said without prejudicing other things. Competing interests wanting different things. An impossible balancing act at times. Am sure communication can be improved, but there are severe limits on what can be said. | |
| |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 17:20 - Oct 5 with 568 views | costalotta |
| Genuine question for the guys @ the Trust on 17:03 - Oct 5 by Uxbridge |
Well, ignoring the digs about a thin skin (I'd have flounced off long ago if that was the case .. if one thing this whole thing has taught me it's to develop a hide thicker than Taylor), there's definitely a plan .... which is very much to get the best people available to work through all possible options and, once exhausted, take the best option available. And if that one doesn't work, take the next one etc. Which pretty much sums up the last few months in many ways.
I get the frustration of not knowing. The problem the Trust has regarding communication is what can be said without prejudicing other things. Competing interests wanting different things. An impossible balancing act at times. Am sure communication can be improved, but there are severe limits on what can be said. |
Nodding...
So you don't misunderstand me it wasn't a dig just an observation in a general sense. You've / we've got one hell of a battle to be won and god knows what tactics they'll use or things will pan out. Take today calling Swansea fans racist for example.
So I'm glad you've developed your skin into a hide! You'll need it I'm sure. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
