| AGM? 20:10 - Jan 28 with 3319 views | ItchySphincter |
I couldn’t make it. Any updates? |  |
| |  |
| AGM? on 20:12 - Jan 28 with 2659 views | vetchonian |
looks like Dan James off to Leds |  |
| |
| AGM? on 20:12 - Jan 28 with 2659 views | monmouth |
It’s the trusts fault we are selling James and Fer and buying nobody. Oh no, sorry, that’s for tomorrow or Thursday. |  |
| |
| AGM? on 20:14 - Jan 28 with 2632 views | longlostjack |
How did the voting go? |  |
| |
| AGM? on 21:53 - Jan 28 with 2324 views | Muteswan |
| AGM? on 20:14 - Jan 28 by longlostjack |
How did the voting go? |
The motions were withdrawn by Roger Brace after consultations due to possible legalities. |  | | |
| AGM? on 22:15 - Jan 28 with 2209 views | longlostjack |
| AGM? on 21:53 - Jan 28 by Muteswan |
The motions were withdrawn by Roger Brace after consultations due to possible legalities. |
Thanks. This is really dragging on. The Wheels of Justice turn slowly indeed. | |
| |
| AGM? on 22:35 - Jan 28 with 2104 views | thornabyswan |
| AGM? on 21:53 - Jan 28 by Muteswan |
The motions were withdrawn by Roger Brace after consultations due to possible legalities. |
So any updates | |
| |
| AGM? on 23:21 - Jan 28 with 2003 views | builthjack |
News is very slow this time around. |  |
| 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.
|
| |
| AGM? on 05:38 - Jan 29 with 1789 views | marchamjack |
Hopefully we’ll get Phil’s address to the meeting published soon.
I wasn’t in attendance but it seems interesting stuff - there’s a final (genuinely final?) mediation planned in February which the Yanks have now supplied the required information into, but the sellers haven’t...with a Members vote on legal action finally happening in March.
Getting this 2nd hand so apologies if incorrect. Ux/Lisa may come on later and correct/update hopefully. |  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| AGM? on 06:39 - Jan 29 with 1736 views | waynekerr55 |
| AGM? on 05:38 - Jan 29 by marchamjack |
Hopefully we’ll get Phil’s address to the meeting published soon.
I wasn’t in attendance but it seems interesting stuff - there’s a final (genuinely final?) mediation planned in February which the Yanks have now supplied the required information into, but the sellers haven’t...with a Members vote on legal action finally happening in March.
Getting this 2nd hand so apologies if incorrect. Ux/Lisa may come on later and correct/update hopefully. |
Thanks Marcham.
I guess Jenkins and co think the Ostritch approach will mean it goes away. I sincerely hope it doesn't |  |
| |
| AGM? on 08:26 - Jan 29 with 1598 views | Vetchfielder |
My notes from last night's meeting:
1.Nigel Hamer standing down as Secretary
2. Mediation meetings between the Trust and the Americans plus the solicitor for HJ, MM, LD set for 28th Feb and 1st March 2019. Consultation with members set for March 2019 which will include a forum and vote of the wider membership - this was a firm commitment. Depending on the outcome of the mediation meetings, there will either be 2 or 3 options on the ballot paper. Last chance for the Americans to come up with something ahead of the March vote.
3. Membership numbers and revenue down from last year but comparable with previous years - currently 1333 members.
4. Costs increased due to ongoing legal costs. Reserves currently at around £800k
5. Motions from Roger Brace were withdrawn due to potential detrimental effect on litigation and issue with some Trust Board members being subject to an NDA. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| AGM? on 08:37 - Jan 29 with 1567 views | jackrmee |
| AGM? on 08:26 - Jan 29 by Vetchfielder |
My notes from last night's meeting:
1.Nigel Hamer standing down as Secretary
2. Mediation meetings between the Trust and the Americans plus the solicitor for HJ, MM, LD set for 28th Feb and 1st March 2019. Consultation with members set for March 2019 which will include a forum and vote of the wider membership - this was a firm commitment. Depending on the outcome of the mediation meetings, there will either be 2 or 3 options on the ballot paper. Last chance for the Americans to come up with something ahead of the March vote.
3. Membership numbers and revenue down from last year but comparable with previous years - currently 1333 members.
4. Costs increased due to ongoing legal costs. Reserves currently at around £800k
5. Motions from Roger Brace were withdrawn due to potential detrimental effect on litigation and issue with some Trust Board members being subject to an NDA. |
Who is that Roger then? He seemed to know his stuff and really care about the club from what I heard last night. |  |
| |
| AGM? on 08:52 - Jan 29 with 1531 views | jackrmee |
Another thing I've been thinking bout and don't quite understand...
There is a risk (if the Trust don't sell their shares) that the Yanks will put more money in and create more shares to dilute the Trust's shares...so if they put £10mil in, the Trust would have to find £2mil to buy more shares in order to still keep their 21% right?
Well that aint gonna happen, so the Trust's share would go down by around half, making them basically worthless right?
So, if I'm one of the Yanks and the Trust take me to court and I realise that I'm going to lose and will have to buy the rest of the Trust's shares for £20mil...what's stopping me thinking, fuk paying £20mil when I can just pay £10mil and dilute their shares instead.
So my question is...
What are the pros and cons of them diluting rather than buying the Trust's shares?
Do you think that they would prefer to dilute for less outlay, or buy for £20mil? | |
| |
| AGM? on 09:54 - Jan 29 with 1468 views | waynekerr55 |
| AGM? on 08:52 - Jan 29 by jackrmee |
Another thing I've been thinking bout and don't quite understand...
There is a risk (if the Trust don't sell their shares) that the Yanks will put more money in and create more shares to dilute the Trust's shares...so if they put £10mil in, the Trust would have to find £2mil to buy more shares in order to still keep their 21% right?
Well that aint gonna happen, so the Trust's share would go down by around half, making them basically worthless right?
So, if I'm one of the Yanks and the Trust take me to court and I realise that I'm going to lose and will have to buy the rest of the Trust's shares for £20mil...what's stopping me thinking, fuk paying £20mil when I can just pay £10mil and dilute their shares instead.
So my question is...
What are the pros and cons of them diluting rather than buying the Trust's shares?
Do you think that they would prefer to dilute for less outlay, or buy for £20mil? |
Lisa is more well versed than I, but I believe that would strengthen the minority prejudice. I say this as a layman and may well be wrong | |
| |
| AGM? on 10:17 - Jan 29 with 1416 views | chad |
| AGM? on 08:52 - Jan 29 by jackrmee |
Another thing I've been thinking bout and don't quite understand...
There is a risk (if the Trust don't sell their shares) that the Yanks will put more money in and create more shares to dilute the Trust's shares...so if they put £10mil in, the Trust would have to find £2mil to buy more shares in order to still keep their 21% right?
Well that aint gonna happen, so the Trust's share would go down by around half, making them basically worthless right?
So, if I'm one of the Yanks and the Trust take me to court and I realise that I'm going to lose and will have to buy the rest of the Trust's shares for £20mil...what's stopping me thinking, fuk paying £20mil when I can just pay £10mil and dilute their shares instead.
So my question is...
What are the pros and cons of them diluting rather than buying the Trust's shares?
Do you think that they would prefer to dilute for less outlay, or buy for £20mil? |
I think they would prefer us to shut up and know our place, which I think they have shown, they consider is akin to doormat, and with them having 75% + voting rights they are not far wrong (except for our strong legal case)
However it matters not what they do with share dilution (which is a very real prospect in the future) as the court will be considering the loss to us at the time the unfair prejudice took place, and a likely outcome of winning this case (which top legal Counsel has said is a strong case) would be us being bought out of our shares at the amount held / price at the time this occurred. Thus giving us a significant pot of money (circa 20m - upon which it was confirmed last night no capital gains tax would be payable) with which to help save the club when needed.
Any machinations by them to circumvent due process would only be viewed to their disadvantage in court. |  | | |
| AGM? on 10:22 - Jan 29 with 1394 views | ScottishEddie |
| AGM? on 10:17 - Jan 29 by chad |
I think they would prefer us to shut up and know our place, which I think they have shown, they consider is akin to doormat, and with them having 75% + voting rights they are not far wrong (except for our strong legal case)
However it matters not what they do with share dilution (which is a very real prospect in the future) as the court will be considering the loss to us at the time the unfair prejudice took place, and a likely outcome of winning this case (which top legal Counsel has said is a strong case) would be us being bought out of our shares at the amount held / price at the time this occurred. Thus giving us a significant pot of money (circa 20m - upon which it was confirmed last night no capital gains tax would be payable) with which to help save the club when needed.
Any machinations by them to circumvent due process would only be viewed to their disadvantage in court. |
So whats changed since the original advice to not vote for legal action? Has the case got stronger? | |
| |
| AGM? on 10:34 - Jan 29 with 1355 views | chad |
| AGM? on 10:22 - Jan 29 by ScottishEddie |
So whats changed since the original advice to not vote for legal action? Has the case got stronger? |
I don’t think there is a stronger recommendation that top counsel would put their considerable reputation to than strong case.
The realisation has just come to some later than others that the new majority shareholders and remaining sellouts are not to be trusted and don’t give a fig for their largest shareholding partners | | | |
| AGM? on 10:52 - Jan 29 with 1310 views | monmouth |
| AGM? on 10:22 - Jan 29 by ScottishEddie |
So whats changed since the original advice to not vote for legal action? Has the case got stronger? |
People that maybe should have known better (personal opinion of course, and easy for me to say) have presumably wised up. Plus some of the weasels have been removed from the decision making. | |
| |
| AGM? on 11:33 - Jan 29 with 1238 views | waynekerr55 |
| AGM? on 10:22 - Jan 29 by ScottishEddie |
So whats changed since the original advice to not vote for legal action? Has the case got stronger? |
Yes, due to the actions of owners past and present. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science to see that they agreed a deal and then reneged, is it? | |
| |
| AGM? on 11:38 - Jan 29 with 1221 views | ScottishEddie |
| AGM? on 11:33 - Jan 29 by waynekerr55 |
Yes, due to the actions of owners past and present. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science to see that they agreed a deal and then reneged, is it? |
Deal?  | |
| |
| AGM? on 11:53 - Jan 29 with 1193 views | waynekerr55 |
So the agreement to sell 5% of the shareholding, followed by subsequent yearly purchases was a figment of my imagination then? [Post edited 29 Jan 2019 12:07]
| |
| |
| AGM? on 12:15 - Jan 29 with 1133 views | ScottishEddie |
| AGM? on 11:53 - Jan 29 by waynekerr55 |
So the agreement to sell 5% of the shareholding, followed by subsequent yearly purchases was a figment of my imagination then? [Post edited 29 Jan 2019 12:07]
|
That sounds just as ridiculous now as it did then. | |
| |
| AGM? on 12:32 - Jan 29 with 1084 views | monmouth |
| AGM? on 12:15 - Jan 29 by ScottishEddie |
That sounds just as ridiculous now as it did then. |
They still offered, it was accepted, and they reneged. That is a big factor in law. | |
| |
| AGM? on 12:39 - Jan 29 with 1060 views | Badlands |
Increasing shares is the only way they will bring in extra money.
I can't see the point of creating more share to reduce the value of Trust shares as the Trust has little influence anyway.
It's a business. |  |
| |
| AGM? on 12:47 - Jan 29 with 1030 views | ScottishEddie |
| AGM? on 12:32 - Jan 29 by monmouth |
They still offered, it was accepted, and they reneged. That is a big factor in law. |
No doubt. | |
| |
| AGM? on 12:48 - Jan 29 with 1026 views | waynekerr55 |
| AGM? on 12:15 - Jan 29 by ScottishEddie |
That sounds just as ridiculous now as it did then. |
I'm sorry, you've lost me Ed. What's the point you're making? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
