| There's a good chance 10:12 - Jun 30 with 2559 views | swancity |
Of blowing Huw Jenkins right out of the water here. Legal advice seems to confirm it.
So go for it. Stop pussy footing around with reasons why it shouldn't be done. There's a very strong case, it seems as water tight as they come. Confirmed by the QC.
|  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| There's a good chance on 10:16 - Jun 30 with 2539 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Winning the case doesn't blow Huw Jenkins anywhere. The Trust gets very wealthy, Huw Jenkins remains as chairman and a shareholder of Swansea City. |  |
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 with 2510 views | felixstowe_jack |
A QCs advice is just that advice and an opinion. QCs on average only win 50% of their cases they lose the other 50%. The only people who make money in a case like this are the lawyers. If you lose the case you end up paying your legal expenses plus the legal expenses of the other party plus court costs. Why not work together and find a solution that suits both sides. You should not let your hatred a person cloud your judgement let alone use the Trusts money to get revenge. | |
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 with 2503 views | Highjack |
Can't we use the money from the deal to pay him to fu ck off? |  |
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:22 - Jun 30 with 2499 views | swancity |
| There's a good chance on 10:16 - Jun 30 by Joe_bradshaw |
Winning the case doesn't blow Huw Jenkins anywhere. The Trust gets very wealthy, Huw Jenkins remains as chairman and a shareholder of Swansea City. |
I think you'll find that he'll be under so much pressure that he'll do the honourable thing and walk. He's being given a red carpet to walk on at the moment. It's bloody wrong from every angle. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:23 - Jun 30 with 2495 views | swancity |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 by felixstowe_jack |
A QCs advice is just that advice and an opinion. QCs on average only win 50% of their cases they lose the other 50%. The only people who make money in a case like this are the lawyers. If you lose the case you end up paying your legal expenses plus the legal expenses of the other party plus court costs. Why not work together and find a solution that suits both sides. You should not let your hatred a person cloud your judgement let alone use the Trusts money to get revenge. |
50%? That seems bollox I'm afraid. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:29 - Jun 30 with 2458 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| There's a good chance on 10:22 - Jun 30 by swancity |
I think you'll find that he'll be under so much pressure that he'll do the honourable thing and walk. He's being given a red carpet to walk on at the moment. It's bloody wrong from every angle. |
He doesn't have an honourable bone in his body. You give him far too much credit. He'd stay and the Trust would be permanently out of the loop. | |
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:33 - Jun 30 with 2430 views | Vetchfielder |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 by felixstowe_jack |
A QCs advice is just that advice and an opinion. QCs on average only win 50% of their cases they lose the other 50%. The only people who make money in a case like this are the lawyers. If you lose the case you end up paying your legal expenses plus the legal expenses of the other party plus court costs. Why not work together and find a solution that suits both sides. You should not let your hatred a person cloud your judgement let alone use the Trusts money to get revenge. |
Every case involving QC's will have a loser and a winner, so I can see where you get the 50% from but it's misleading. I bet the % win is much higher for QC's representing complainants (as opposed to those representing defendants) and higher still for those that have had good advice from a QC even before going to court. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:38 - Jun 30 with 2412 views | Phil_S |
Just to categorically state something here
If the Trust members elect to take the litigation option then Huw Jenkins remains as Chairman and in excess of 5% shareholder in Swansea City.
Voting to take that option does not and will not change that
Just for clarity |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| There's a good chance on 10:42 - Jun 30 with 2374 views | swanforthemoney |
You don't necessarily blow HJ out of the water. He has the full support of the majority owners. That is very clear.
If you bring a case against HJ he just puts his assets out of reach. You've surly seen the cases in the paper of these bitter divorces and the husband salts his money away, the wife spends millions pursuing him, wins and gets nothing. She goes to hell in a handcart, he's still got bits and bobs of assets all over the place and does all right thank you.
It's cutting off you nose to spite your face taking action. The buyers seem to have caved in completely. Take the offer of purchasing about half our shares on the same terms as the sell outs got, and retain a shareholding and a seat on the board. It really is win win.
The visceral hatred of Jenkins is blinding people to the opportunity to set the Trust up with more capital than a lot of league clubs.
With this offer, the Trust will be able to keep oversight and have the financial wherewithall to enforce it. And that will be for GENERATIONS long after Jenkins and the current Trust Board are having to have their arses wiped for them. |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:45 - Jun 30 with 2350 views | pikeypaul |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 by felixstowe_jack |
A QCs advice is just that advice and an opinion. QCs on average only win 50% of their cases they lose the other 50%. The only people who make money in a case like this are the lawyers. If you lose the case you end up paying your legal expenses plus the legal expenses of the other party plus court costs. Why not work together and find a solution that suits both sides. You should not let your hatred a person cloud your judgement let alone use the Trusts money to get revenge. |
QCs with very good cases win far more than 50% of their cases.
Overall QCs win and lose 50% since the QCs employed to defend clients who have broken the law and being sued would only win a small percentage of their cases..
And that is were we stand. TO say every court case is a 50/50 is obviously a silly statement.
Court cases are decided on all known facts and not on a toss of a coin which you are implying. |  |
| |
| There's a good chance on 10:57 - Jun 30 with 2277 views | pencoedjack |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 by felixstowe_jack |
A QCs advice is just that advice and an opinion. QCs on average only win 50% of their cases they lose the other 50%. The only people who make money in a case like this are the lawyers. If you lose the case you end up paying your legal expenses plus the legal expenses of the other party plus court costs. Why not work together and find a solution that suits both sides. You should not let your hatred a person cloud your judgement let alone use the Trusts money to get revenge. |
So if you got royally fuked over by people you had a share in a business with, you'd just let it go & work with the new owners and the people who fuked you over ?
Wow |  | | |
| There's a good chance on 11:16 - Jun 30 with 2197 views | Flashberryjack |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 by Highjack |
Can't we use the money from the deal to pay him to fu ck off? |
Don't you think we've paid Huw enough already ? I wouldn't give the c*nt another penny. |  |
| |
| There's a good chance on 11:56 - Jun 30 with 2043 views | waynekerr55 |
| There's a good chance on 10:22 - Jun 30 by swancity |
I think you'll find that he'll be under so much pressure that he'll do the honourable thing and walk. He's being given a red carpet to walk on at the moment. It's bloody wrong from every angle. |
Honorable thing?
You do realise the man has more front than Southend. The c*nt aint going anywhere |  |
| |
| There's a good chance on 17:10 - Jun 30 with 1523 views | builthjack |
Get a hitman in |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| There's a good chance on 17:21 - Jun 30 with 1487 views | Oldjack |
Treacherous Huw made us biggish mind ,he'll never leave whilst the Yanks love him |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| There's a good chance on 17:46 - Jun 30 with 1412 views | monmouth |
Much as the bloke makes my skin crawl, and it hurts to say this, forget Huw Jenkins in terms of this decision. The only question is what's best for the SUPPORTERS of Swansea City. To me that means a mix of money and influence. So normally I would say do the deal. Particularly with the tagging rights. Problem is, it feels like a really sub optimal deal. So it's whether I'd rather the Trust get full value (I think they would win) and let people I don't trust one inch to ever play fair, or to act in good faith, just get on with it with the safety net established.
For me, All the club in turmoil stuff is just a red herring. Footballers play for money, the yanks will remain the owners, jenkins will remain chairman, and it's in no one's interest for the club to not be as successful as possible throughout a background litigation. So I'm just fully discounting that stuff.
So still totally undecided. Yanks could have killed it with a truly fair deal, but they chose not to, which is probably as good a sign as any that we should tell them to stuff it. |  |
| |
| There's a good chance on 19:25 - Jun 30 with 1277 views | BillyChong |
| There's a good chance on 17:46 - Jun 30 by monmouth |
Much as the bloke makes my skin crawl, and it hurts to say this, forget Huw Jenkins in terms of this decision. The only question is what's best for the SUPPORTERS of Swansea City. To me that means a mix of money and influence. So normally I would say do the deal. Particularly with the tagging rights. Problem is, it feels like a really sub optimal deal. So it's whether I'd rather the Trust get full value (I think they would win) and let people I don't trust one inch to ever play fair, or to act in good faith, just get on with it with the safety net established.
For me, All the club in turmoil stuff is just a red herring. Footballers play for money, the yanks will remain the owners, jenkins will remain chairman, and it's in no one's interest for the club to not be as successful as possible throughout a background litigation. So I'm just fully discounting that stuff.
So still totally undecided. Yanks could have killed it with a truly fair deal, but they chose not to, which is probably as good a sign as any that we should tell them to stuff it. |
That last paragraph sums it up for me atm | | | |
| There's a good chance on 19:36 - Jun 30 with 1220 views | headcleaner |
have the owners done or said anything in the last year to suggest they are decent and trustworthy guys? No thought not. I know it's burning bridges and the trust might feel uncomfortable facing these snakes and current owners but if the members want a fight how long will it take to get the ball rolling?
Also if the trust boards advice is to put up and suck it up as unpalatable as it is then they get forced to go down the litigation route will their hearts be in the fight 100%.
Obviously, I'd love to be in the premier league fighting to finish as high as possible and win a cup but I won't lose any sleep if I find myself watching the swans in any of the divisions below us. but I will feel a huge sense of satisfaction seeing the board's money evaporate and their income streams dry up and Huw will fark orf to squander his ill-gotten gain and hopefully, we can all sit in the public gallery as he files for another bankruptcy. The whole thing really does rankle even after all these months. |  | | |
| There's a good chance on 19:42 - Jun 30 with 1196 views | Landore_Jack |
| There's a good chance on 17:10 - Jun 30 by builthjack |
Get a hitman in |
Or the North Bank Alliance. |  |
| |
| There's a good chance on 20:59 - Jun 30 with 1054 views | Meraki |
| There's a good chance on 10:38 - Jun 30 by Phil_S |
Just to categorically state something here
If the Trust members elect to take the litigation option then Huw Jenkins remains as Chairman and in excess of 5% shareholder in Swansea City.
Voting to take that option does not and will not change that
Just for clarity |
And if they vote to take the pay-off that option does not and will not change that.
But at least we won't look like a bunch of f*cking wet wipes, should of just done this a year ago. | | | |
| There's a good chance on 21:02 - Jun 30 with 1044 views | SwansNZ |
| There's a good chance on 10:23 - Jun 30 by swancity |
50%? That seems bollox I'm afraid. |
If one wins the other loses, simple = 50%
Could be that ours is the Chelsea of QCs, or we could have the Sunderland of QCs. |  |
| |
| There's a good chance on 00:16 - Jul 1 with 763 views | Loyal |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 by felixstowe_jack |
A QCs advice is just that advice and an opinion. QCs on average only win 50% of their cases they lose the other 50%. The only people who make money in a case like this are the lawyers. If you lose the case you end up paying your legal expenses plus the legal expenses of the other party plus court costs. Why not work together and find a solution that suits both sides. You should not let your hatred a person cloud your judgement let alone use the Trusts money to get revenge. |
On average of course they win 50%
There's only two fcking sides 😂 |  |
| 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 |
| |
| There's a good chance on 03:25 - Jul 1 with 723 views | DJack |
| There's a good chance on 10:21 - Jun 30 by felixstowe_jack |
A QCs advice is just that advice and an opinion. QCs on average only win 50% of their cases they lose the other 50%. The only people who make money in a case like this are the lawyers. If you lose the case you end up paying your legal expenses plus the legal expenses of the other party plus court costs. Why not work together and find a solution that suits both sides. You should not let your hatred a person cloud your judgement let alone use the Trusts money to get revenge. |
Full disclosure , mate.
Personally I think you are a dick... but I cannot lie , your quoted statement is bang on the money... have an up arrow. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| There's a good chance on 03:37 - Jul 1 with 716 views | DJack |
| There's a good chance on 17:46 - Jun 30 by monmouth |
Much as the bloke makes my skin crawl, and it hurts to say this, forget Huw Jenkins in terms of this decision. The only question is what's best for the SUPPORTERS of Swansea City. To me that means a mix of money and influence. So normally I would say do the deal. Particularly with the tagging rights. Problem is, it feels like a really sub optimal deal. So it's whether I'd rather the Trust get full value (I think they would win) and let people I don't trust one inch to ever play fair, or to act in good faith, just get on with it with the safety net established.
For me, All the club in turmoil stuff is just a red herring. Footballers play for money, the yanks will remain the owners, jenkins will remain chairman, and it's in no one's interest for the club to not be as successful as possible throughout a background litigation. So I'm just fully discounting that stuff.
So still totally undecided. Yanks could have killed it with a truly fair deal, but they chose not to, which is probably as good a sign as any that we should tell them to stuff it. |
Monny, as ever you are awesome!... Lap of the gods, what do we do? Sup with the devil or elect the death of our choosing!? Premier league or OUR CLUB.
Jenkins is a distraction and not THE choice ...but the choice we have is not great. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
