| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust 10:16 - Nov 21 with 18589 views | KeithHaynes |
It’s been an interesting topic for sure, which does sometimes spill over in to other threads, and understandably so. I've taken some time out to look at the specific action taken. It’s my understanding that this is very clearly down to specific issues around the weeks leading up to the sale of the club by the old board. The exclusion of the supporters trust in the sale and despite the trust wishing to be involved were excluded. That’s the basis of the action. For it to be a valid action the statements of truth gathered by the ( plaintiff) other words are used to describe them have to have some depth in law. Clearly the trust haven’t gone ahead to freeze assets and this is another topic which needs clarification. This action is not against Swansea City FC, as it was then or is now. The claims being brought are not against the club.
They are against those individuals who sold the club as they were, not the club as it was, nor as it is now. I think this should be a key area for people to dwell upon. I would have thought both sides ( and there are many sides named because it isn’t one entity) will have already disclosed at least some, but not all of their paperwork similar to criminal cases ( CPIA it’s called criminally ) As there is no fixed date as yet for a trial my understanding is full disclosure has to go ahead before any trial. I think that’s around eight weeks prior.
That aside, it still seems to me to be pretty clear the various named persons will either have to settle to some extent prior to any trial date or go ahead and defend the action. This isn’t as a whole being but as individuals. For example, Jenkins and Dineen will be separate defendants as will the rest of the then board. Any award will not be paid for by the club but by the individuals from their own personal wealth, if of course they lose the action. That will be measured by percentages, but I’m pretty certain won’t amount to the actual money lost by the trust when the sale went ahead.
That’s my take on it, please discuss that here folks, give it some thought before pressing enter, there are clearly some differing stances on here, which is healthy and as I would expect in a society where personal interests and views will always be different. If we can keep the topic on this thread it will be an interesting discussion. |  |
| |  |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:44 - Nov 21 with 4393 views | onehunglow |
So Jenkins and Dinneen in the dock.They are to be sued personally for malfeasance with a view to damages .
Have I got that right Keith |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:55 - Nov 21 with 4391 views | onehunglow |
So Jenkins and Dinneen in the dock.They are to be sued personally for malfeasance with a view to damages .
Have I got that right Keith | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:03 - Nov 21 with 4386 views | Chief |
So your understanding Keith is that the case wont be to force the Americans to buy the trust's shares? |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:10 - Nov 21 with 4377 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:03 - Nov 21 by Chief |
So your understanding Keith is that the case wont be to force the Americans to buy the trust's shares? |
From what I know, and I always stand to be corrected ( orthopaedic shoes etc ) all I can see is an action against the individuals named, not against the club or any other business. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:16 - Nov 21 with 4372 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:10 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes |
From what I know, and I always stand to be corrected ( orthopaedic shoes etc ) all I can see is an action against the individuals named, not against the club or any other business. |
So its for damages from the sell outs. And nothing to do eith Kaplan and Levein et al then? | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:22 - Nov 21 with 4365 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:16 - Nov 21 by Chief |
So its for damages from the sell outs. And nothing to do eith Kaplan and Levein et al then? |
That’s how I read it, however I would imagine if there’s some degree of culpability it could come in to play, I haven’t seen these two named anywhere, so as it stands not as far as I can see. There is a reverse burden on the trust to prove their claim and not necessarily for the named persons to defend it. I imagine even if the trust prove everything they want to, in a trial they could still come out potless.
As an edit. Kaplan and Levine would make far better witnesses for the trust IMO.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:49 - Nov 21 with 4331 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 12:44 - Nov 21 by onehunglow |
So Jenkins and Dinneen in the dock.They are to be sued personally for malfeasance with a view to damages .
Have I got that right Keith |
Breach of contract I would say.
Malfeasance is used from what I know in more public office roles, although the actual points of law in malfeasance ( like you had for simple theft in the police ) have to show dishonesty, a positive action to show they were dishonest. maybe exceeding their authority for personal reasons but it’s a minefield. I would have thought the listing of the complaint has been the longest determination by the trust advisors, that has to be spot on. My background is more in line with criminal law ( not like my brother who was a runner for a law firm) but in a qualified way in lecturing and delivering lawful process to students. Yes in civil matters too. But the burdens of proof are ridiculously different.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:58 - Nov 21 with 4316 views | onehunglow |
Will they look for compensation from them.? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:03 - Nov 21 with 4315 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 13:58 - Nov 21 by onehunglow |
Will they look for compensation from them.? |
Yes, and that’s where the division of capital, if the trust win is the problem. The trust won’t get what they would have originally got, that was around 16 million. So I assume the collateral of those named in the action will be pursued if they say they haven’t got the money or any money left. ( house being quickly being put in to the mrs name is a favourite ) so when they did that, if they did, will be crucial. If it’s post the action being served it could get messy. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:07 - Nov 21 with 4306 views | onehunglow |
Thanks Keith.
Simply as I see it,if compensation is sought ,I’m not sure how the likes of Dinesen and Jenkins are in a position to compensate to any degree.
For me,an utter waste of time ,effort and resources.
I d be more concerned about attracting potential buyers with real financial clout. Even Wrexham have attracted new buyers with money to put into the club.
Swansea region is sizeable region with no competition whatsoever | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:10 - Nov 21 with 4300 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:07 - Nov 21 by onehunglow |
Thanks Keith.
Simply as I see it,if compensation is sought ,I’m not sure how the likes of Dinesen and Jenkins are in a position to compensate to any degree.
For me,an utter waste of time ,effort and resources.
I d be more concerned about attracting potential buyers with real financial clout. Even Wrexham have attracted new buyers with money to put into the club.
Swansea region is sizeable region with no competition whatsoever |
22% of their wealth made from the deal plus the usual 8% interest loaded on.
It could prove decent.
I don’t know the exact figures of the wealth they made from the sale but that’s the simple way of looking at it.
If it gives the trust 5 million in the bank for a rainy day, that’s a sizeable amount when invested.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:28 - Nov 21 with 4269 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
In my opinion irresepective of the right s and wrongs of the sale legal action is not in the best interests of Swansea city or the Trust.
Considerations are given below.
a) The club is not falling down the leagues. There is no immediate worry about administration and the club is performing better than many expected. The "Yanks" might know what they are doing after all.
b) Inflation has seen the value of football clubs in the PL (Burnley) and Championship (Derby) increase significantly. 50-100% for the right buyer.
c) The costs of a no win no fee are traditionally prohibitive. Tax also has to be considered. The value of the Trust win could turn out to be little more than the actual championship value of the club at present. If this is the case what is the point?
d) The bad feeling generalted would result in future potential investors keeping the Trust well out of their business in the future. I do not believe they will ever be allowed back. New owners would not like to have to walk on eggshells to keep them happy.
e) The Trusts future outside the club is bleak. They have shown no financial acumen in investing and membership and interest will plumment.
Why would going to court be useful? This could be argued a good otion only if Swansea city hits the skids and starts falling down the leagues. 4 years from the sale the slide down the leagues has not happened and clubs with big budgets like Stoke Forest and Derby are struggling with costs and Covid 19.
After some bad years the club has had its best transfer window for some time and the academy is still going. The doom laden scenarios promoted by many on forums such as this but simply not happened and the club has engineered the parachute reductions expertly. Swansea fans are notoriously doom laden pessimists. Camparing the US owner with the like of Mr Petty is laughable but still commonly done.
The Trust I would want to see is one that believes in the club management and goes for the PL. In that case with an agreed 'tag along' this could see the Trust gross a whopping £42m in any future sale. They could also agree a futures deal where they get a fixed price for their shares on promotion. Staying on good terms with constructive rather than a litigous attitude would mean they are more likely to be readmitted with cash investment. This is surely what fans realy want?
I recommend an assessment by a respected business analyst to review the business case for legal action (not the moral case). I do not believe it stands up to scrutiny. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:28 - Nov 21 with 4267 views | onehunglow |
It begs the question as to what they have done with their wealth.If they have squandered it or have good accountants,getting it from them might be harder than we think. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:30 - Nov 21 with 4262 views | KeithHaynes |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:28 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
In my opinion irresepective of the right s and wrongs of the sale legal action is not in the best interests of Swansea city or the Trust.
Considerations are given below.
a) The club is not falling down the leagues. There is no immediate worry about administration and the club is performing better than many expected. The "Yanks" might know what they are doing after all.
b) Inflation has seen the value of football clubs in the PL (Burnley) and Championship (Derby) increase significantly. 50-100% for the right buyer.
c) The costs of a no win no fee are traditionally prohibitive. Tax also has to be considered. The value of the Trust win could turn out to be little more than the actual championship value of the club at present. If this is the case what is the point?
d) The bad feeling generalted would result in future potential investors keeping the Trust well out of their business in the future. I do not believe they will ever be allowed back. New owners would not like to have to walk on eggshells to keep them happy.
e) The Trusts future outside the club is bleak. They have shown no financial acumen in investing and membership and interest will plumment.
Why would going to court be useful? This could be argued a good otion only if Swansea city hits the skids and starts falling down the leagues. 4 years from the sale the slide down the leagues has not happened and clubs with big budgets like Stoke Forest and Derby are struggling with costs and Covid 19.
After some bad years the club has had its best transfer window for some time and the academy is still going. The doom laden scenarios promoted by many on forums such as this but simply not happened and the club has engineered the parachute reductions expertly. Swansea fans are notoriously doom laden pessimists. Camparing the US owner with the like of Mr Petty is laughable but still commonly done.
The Trust I would want to see is one that believes in the club management and goes for the PL. In that case with an agreed 'tag along' this could see the Trust gross a whopping £42m in any future sale. They could also agree a futures deal where they get a fixed price for their shares on promotion. Staying on good terms with constructive rather than a litigous attitude would mean they are more likely to be readmitted with cash investment. This is surely what fans realy want?
I recommend an assessment by a respected business analyst to review the business case for legal action (not the moral case). I do not believe it stands up to scrutiny. |
Another well thought out post, but I think the action is so far down the road now it’s happening regardless. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:32 - Nov 21 with 4261 views | Chief |
So presumably the Trusts shares will not be on the line then. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:45 - Nov 21 with 4246 views | Catullus |
If house ownership has been moved, hasn't the law been changed to accomodate such actions? Does it depend when the transfer happened? If they can show it was done purely to avoid the court case result I think it can be challeneged.
Resloven has banged on about this a lot and whatever the business case, I'm sure the trust would not do this if they felt it would sunstantially damage the club. As for the moral case, the previous owners stand accused of deceit, of lying and possibly illegal actions, morally speaking, if the case is strong enough to prove that then it should go ahead. Hopefully the trust solicitors would have advised them on the strength of their case and wouldn't advise to proceed unless they felt fairly sure they could win. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:33 - Nov 21 with 4214 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:45 - Nov 21 by Catullus |
If house ownership has been moved, hasn't the law been changed to accomodate such actions? Does it depend when the transfer happened? If they can show it was done purely to avoid the court case result I think it can be challeneged.
Resloven has banged on about this a lot and whatever the business case, I'm sure the trust would not do this if they felt it would sunstantially damage the club. As for the moral case, the previous owners stand accused of deceit, of lying and possibly illegal actions, morally speaking, if the case is strong enough to prove that then it should go ahead. Hopefully the trust solicitors would have advised them on the strength of their case and wouldn't advise to proceed unless they felt fairly sure they could win. |
Keith said there is a transfer clause. So has to be shown when it happened, but not sure he said it was an issue. |  |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:38 - Nov 21 with 4205 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:45 - Nov 21 by Catullus |
If house ownership has been moved, hasn't the law been changed to accomodate such actions? Does it depend when the transfer happened? If they can show it was done purely to avoid the court case result I think it can be challeneged.
Resloven has banged on about this a lot and whatever the business case, I'm sure the trust would not do this if they felt it would sunstantially damage the club. As for the moral case, the previous owners stand accused of deceit, of lying and possibly illegal actions, morally speaking, if the case is strong enough to prove that then it should go ahead. Hopefully the trust solicitors would have advised them on the strength of their case and wouldn't advise to proceed unless they felt fairly sure they could win. |
Whether the Trust s sollictors think they have a good case is obviously important but they will get paid win or lose as I understand it. They have a vested interest in going ahead. The Trust cannot afford the case from the figures talked about and are putting all the risk on the 'funders' who will charge them big fees for a win. These are the people who will pay the legal and court costs in the event of loss through gritted teeth. It could be over £1-2m or more of their money as I understand it.
They will only go ahead with a very stong chance of winning. They have to be convinced the Trust volunteers will perform well in court and have a strong constitution. These will he high stress events where inacurate statements can put volunteers in big big trouble.
Naturally if the funders are not convinced the case is very strong they could, I have argued, cover the liabilities of losing by getting the Trust to pay them in the Trust's club shares. If the Trust s shares are used to cover costs the members should be concerned. Some have argued the Trusts shares are worthless. This, is and always has been, nonscence. The members are probably no longer relevant as they have already voted. I hope the people that pushed for this case are the one who will stand up in court. I for one would not like to be in their shoes. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 15:46]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:02 - Nov 21 with 4106 views | Dr_Winston |
Makes more sense.
As far as I'm concerned the issue has always been the actions of these certain individuals who worked to exclude the Trust rather than the buyers. I'd rather see certain individuals bankrupted than drag the club through legal action. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 16:02]
|  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:20 - Nov 21 with 4170 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 16:02 - Nov 21 by Dr_Winston |
Makes more sense.
As far as I'm concerned the issue has always been the actions of these certain individuals who worked to exclude the Trust rather than the buyers. I'd rather see certain individuals bankrupted than drag the club through legal action. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 16:02]
|
The mention of calling the Americans as witnesses is intriguing. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:01 - Nov 21 with 4089 views | Catullus |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 15:38 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Whether the Trust s sollictors think they have a good case is obviously important but they will get paid win or lose as I understand it. They have a vested interest in going ahead. The Trust cannot afford the case from the figures talked about and are putting all the risk on the 'funders' who will charge them big fees for a win. These are the people who will pay the legal and court costs in the event of loss through gritted teeth. It could be over £1-2m or more of their money as I understand it.
They will only go ahead with a very stong chance of winning. They have to be convinced the Trust volunteers will perform well in court and have a strong constitution. These will he high stress events where inacurate statements can put volunteers in big big trouble.
Naturally if the funders are not convinced the case is very strong they could, I have argued, cover the liabilities of losing by getting the Trust to pay them in the Trust's club shares. If the Trust s shares are used to cover costs the members should be concerned. Some have argued the Trusts shares are worthless. This, is and always has been, nonscence. The members are probably no longer relevant as they have already voted. I hope the people that pushed for this case are the one who will stand up in court. I for one would not like to be in their shoes. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 15:46]
|
I keep my dealings with lawyers to a very minimum but is there a duty of care in legal advice? If their lawyers gave them bad advice, ie that the case was never winnable, could the trust have recourse? Obviously then that would involve others in the legal profession!
As for saying the shares ar worthless, haven't you, Resloven, been the one criticising them the most for not selling, even though you have admitted they were deliberately excluded from the sale, for saying legal action now makes no sense because if we got promoted the shares would be worth more next season?
Indeed, haven't you been criticised for sounding like a representtative of the previous owners?
The trust have apprently been told they have a good case, that being so they could make a significant financial gain and have money in the bank as well as shares. If it doesn't harm the club itself it would be a very good outcome. The current owners can carry on as they are but if there were any problems in the future the trust would be in a stronger position to help. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:05 - Nov 21 with 4081 views | NotLoyal |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:01 - Nov 21 by Catullus |
I keep my dealings with lawyers to a very minimum but is there a duty of care in legal advice? If their lawyers gave them bad advice, ie that the case was never winnable, could the trust have recourse? Obviously then that would involve others in the legal profession!
As for saying the shares ar worthless, haven't you, Resloven, been the one criticising them the most for not selling, even though you have admitted they were deliberately excluded from the sale, for saying legal action now makes no sense because if we got promoted the shares would be worth more next season?
Indeed, haven't you been criticised for sounding like a representtative of the previous owners?
The trust have apprently been told they have a good case, that being so they could make a significant financial gain and have money in the bank as well as shares. If it doesn't harm the club itself it would be a very good outcome. The current owners can carry on as they are but if there were any problems in the future the trust would be in a stronger position to help. |
The clarity for me is when the club was sold those shares were anything but worthless. | |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:29 - Nov 21 with 4068 views | swancity |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:30 - Nov 21 by KeithHaynes |
Another well thought out post, but I think the action is so far down the road now it’s happening regardless. |
Great news 👠| |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:44 - Nov 21 with 4054 views | Chief |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 14:28 - Nov 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
In my opinion irresepective of the right s and wrongs of the sale legal action is not in the best interests of Swansea city or the Trust.
Considerations are given below.
a) The club is not falling down the leagues. There is no immediate worry about administration and the club is performing better than many expected. The "Yanks" might know what they are doing after all.
b) Inflation has seen the value of football clubs in the PL (Burnley) and Championship (Derby) increase significantly. 50-100% for the right buyer.
c) The costs of a no win no fee are traditionally prohibitive. Tax also has to be considered. The value of the Trust win could turn out to be little more than the actual championship value of the club at present. If this is the case what is the point?
d) The bad feeling generalted would result in future potential investors keeping the Trust well out of their business in the future. I do not believe they will ever be allowed back. New owners would not like to have to walk on eggshells to keep them happy.
e) The Trusts future outside the club is bleak. They have shown no financial acumen in investing and membership and interest will plumment.
Why would going to court be useful? This could be argued a good otion only if Swansea city hits the skids and starts falling down the leagues. 4 years from the sale the slide down the leagues has not happened and clubs with big budgets like Stoke Forest and Derby are struggling with costs and Covid 19.
After some bad years the club has had its best transfer window for some time and the academy is still going. The doom laden scenarios promoted by many on forums such as this but simply not happened and the club has engineered the parachute reductions expertly. Swansea fans are notoriously doom laden pessimists. Camparing the US owner with the like of Mr Petty is laughable but still commonly done.
The Trust I would want to see is one that believes in the club management and goes for the PL. In that case with an agreed 'tag along' this could see the Trust gross a whopping £42m in any future sale. They could also agree a futures deal where they get a fixed price for their shares on promotion. Staying on good terms with constructive rather than a litigous attitude would mean they are more likely to be readmitted with cash investment. This is surely what fans realy want?
I recommend an assessment by a respected business analyst to review the business case for legal action (not the moral case). I do not believe it stands up to scrutiny. |
So this new information which is different to what you (and indeed most of us) thought was going to happen - ie the Americans buying the trusts shares, totally invalidates all the hysteric nonsense such as the Americans financially raping the club in the event of a trust win&the trust leaving the club forever etc etc that you have been bellowing about every opportunity.
Yet you still find negativity and sticks to beat the trust with. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 18:46]
| |
| |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 19:06 - Nov 21 with 4022 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| The action taken by Swansea City Supporters Trust on 18:44 - Nov 21 by Chief |
So this new information which is different to what you (and indeed most of us) thought was going to happen - ie the Americans buying the trusts shares, totally invalidates all the hysteric nonsense such as the Americans financially raping the club in the event of a trust win&the trust leaving the club forever etc etc that you have been bellowing about every opportunity.
Yet you still find negativity and sticks to beat the trust with. [Post edited 21 Nov 2020 18:46]
|
Please explain why it was the US people who were called to the failed mediation talks not
only the sellers.? One of the sellers was reported as being a firm. You know what that means. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.