| The trust debate 2 12:42 - Apr 12 with 2689 views | KeithHaynes |
Unfortunately hijacked.
And ruined.
Shame really, but colours are often nailed to a mast. Please remember this is a forum for debate not opinion on what’s not there.
My point is this, and yes I have NOW read an article posted on another website about the trust. My view does not change to much extent. My personal feeling remains that certain individuals on the trust board through time have placed their own interests before that of their appointment. This article today is a well constructed and very articulate piece. I’m unsure where it fits in with my belief that certain trust members have not fulfilled their obligations as paid members of the trust would have expected.
It merely offers one side of an opinion with one or two revelations which are disappointing. Some of us are able to speak up and walk away with everything intact, others believe they are the only route out of a situation and others couldn’t do better.
I stand by my opinion.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:45 - Apr 12 with 1460 views | Chief |
If you stood by it you wouldn't have deleted the thread and stood up to my polite scrutiny of it.
And now because this is a new thread and members won't have seen the other one are you going to reveal this time as to what individual you are actually referring to? [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 12:46]
|  |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:46 - Apr 12 with 1443 views | KeithHaynes |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:45 - Apr 12 by Chief |
If you stood by it you wouldn't have deleted the thread and stood up to my polite scrutiny of it.
And now because this is a new thread and members won't have seen the other one are you going to reveal this time as to what individual you are actually referring to? [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 12:46]
|
I can’t stand by and allow you to manufacture things that aren’t their and then name people as a result.
The thread will always be here, if anyone wants to see it they can DM me, But I doubt they will from the many DM’s I got as a result of your determination to turn it in to some thing it wasn’t.
Back on topic.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:48 - Apr 12 with 1424 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:46 - Apr 12 by KeithHaynes |
I can’t stand by and allow you to manufacture things that aren’t their and then name people as a result.
The thread will always be here, if anyone wants to see it they can DM me, But I doubt they will from the many DM’s I got as a result of your determination to turn it in to some thing it wasn’t.
Back on topic.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
But I'm expected to ignore you accusing me of manufacturing something?
Which is what exactly? | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:49 - Apr 12 with 1417 views | KeithHaynes |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:48 - Apr 12 by Chief |
But I'm expected to ignore you accusing me of manufacturing something?
Which is what exactly? |
Back on topic. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:56 - Apr 12 with 1378 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 12:49 - Apr 12 by KeithHaynes |
Back on topic. |
I'm trying to contribute to the topic by asking who it is you are referring to.
Does it magically (and entirely coincidentally of course) happen to be the person the Swansea Independent twitter account has been having a spat (it definitely is!) with today over Fulton and has deviated into matters involving the potential slandering of this forum? | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:08 - Apr 12 with 1336 views | KeithHaynes |
I’m off to Seville for the day Chief, you crack on. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:15 - Apr 12 with 1291 views | KeithHaynes |
Ok Chief, if anyone cared they would have responded, as I said the DM’s I’ve received on Twitter since then tell me otherwise. But then it is best at times to say nothing, agreed. However, I can’t prevent the affect my responses have on anyone. You are anyone reading it. I manage my replies as well as I can on here, and as I said I don’t instigate these matters on Twitter as an example, I only respond. If people kept their jaws a bit more wired these things wouldn’t happen.
Hopefully this topic will now develop with well constructed debate.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:19 - Apr 12 with 1261 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:15 - Apr 12 by KeithHaynes |
Ok Chief, if anyone cared they would have responded, as I said the DM’s I’ve received on Twitter since then tell me otherwise. But then it is best at times to say nothing, agreed. However, I can’t prevent the affect my responses have on anyone. You are anyone reading it. I manage my replies as well as I can on here, and as I said I don’t instigate these matters on Twitter as an example, I only respond. If people kept their jaws a bit more wired these things wouldn’t happen.
Hopefully this topic will now develop with well constructed debate.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I'm giving you the opportunity to name and shame and provide the evidence of this abuse and if it's come from the twitter account the SI twitter account instigated something with today, why not spill the beans.
But what you've just proved and confirmed my thoughts again, is that this isn't about the trust. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The trust debate 2 on 13:21 - Apr 12 with 1251 views | KeithHaynes |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:19 - Apr 12 by Chief |
I'm giving you the opportunity to name and shame and provide the evidence of this abuse and if it's come from the twitter account the SI twitter account instigated something with today, why not spill the beans.
But what you've just proved and confirmed my thoughts again, is that this isn't about the trust. |
I’m off, it’s old hat and agreements are in place for me not to do that. I’m not opening up old scores to prove a point and satisfy you. This thread is about the trust, you’ve made your point ace, it’s time to move on.
I have to add I couldn’t care what anyone thinks Chief, just what they affect personally be that with or without the knowledge of what they are doing. Seriously that’s it. I’m not Resloven. You’ve exhausted this to death now and I would think people have read enough. No allegations towards any account you refer to have been made by me, only in your head. I’ve tried to end this amicably, accept you will get no more answers and the thread topic is as it is.
NOT in this case of course, but they are also under investigation by SWP, this Chief is my last word.
You too have a nice day. And try collecting information a bit more carefully before responding. 😉ðŸ™
Back on topic.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:32 - Apr 12 with 1186 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:21 - Apr 12 by KeithHaynes |
I’m off, it’s old hat and agreements are in place for me not to do that. I’m not opening up old scores to prove a point and satisfy you. This thread is about the trust, you’ve made your point ace, it’s time to move on.
I have to add I couldn’t care what anyone thinks Chief, just what they affect personally be that with or without the knowledge of what they are doing. Seriously that’s it. I’m not Resloven. You’ve exhausted this to death now and I would think people have read enough. No allegations towards any account you refer to have been made by me, only in your head. I’ve tried to end this amicably, accept you will get no more answers and the thread topic is as it is.
NOT in this case of course, but they are also under investigation by SWP, this Chief is my last word.
You too have a nice day. And try collecting information a bit more carefully before responding. 😉ðŸ™
Back on topic.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Have a good day and come back refreshed. I don't know why the SI twitter admin thinks it's a good look to pick arguments over Fulton then steer it to more personal matters and then offer up no evidence, but it's poor and a bad look.
And Resloven refuses to address my awkward points too  | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:52 - Apr 12 with 1121 views | Chief |
SI twitter admin: (referring to me)
"Hope you enjoyed it, a more muddled forum contributor and collector of information I’ve yet to meet. But always welcome of course."
Extract from a thread on this forum warning against conflict and abuse:
"there is a respect and privilege attached to being on here"
Hmm | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:56 - Apr 12 with 1105 views | Whiterockin |
TBH is anyone interested anymore in what the trust says or does (or doesn't do). As far as I am concerned that boat sailed when they chose not to do what the members voted for. |  | | |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:04 - Apr 12 with 1065 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Trust ended for me maybe 7 years ago.
Not many would listen back then, I explained in great detail why the Trust wouldn’t survive another decade. Their only play was to change their aims the second they knew, even got a hint that others wanted to sell.
They lacked foresight, were far too rigid in their aims which didn’t really change until wheels were in motion and far too many of them were self serving, doing so to create some sort of personal legacy.
There are so many instances of wrong doing which obviously would get complained about if I repeated them, but there was repeated error after error for the last 7 years or so.
This recent deal with the Americans being signed behind the backs of the members for me is not too different to the vote that was essentially pre determined by process to take another terrible deal a few years back.
Asking a question you can essentially manufacture and answer for is not a million miles away from not asking it at all in my book.
Past members are absolutely trying to throw more recent members under the bus. For my money they are all as bad as each other. |  |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:17 - Apr 12 with 1048 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:04 - Apr 12 by Dr_Parnassus |
Trust ended for me maybe 7 years ago.
Not many would listen back then, I explained in great detail why the Trust wouldn’t survive another decade. Their only play was to change their aims the second they knew, even got a hint that others wanted to sell.
They lacked foresight, were far too rigid in their aims which didn’t really change until wheels were in motion and far too many of them were self serving, doing so to create some sort of personal legacy.
There are so many instances of wrong doing which obviously would get complained about if I repeated them, but there was repeated error after error for the last 7 years or so.
This recent deal with the Americans being signed behind the backs of the members for me is not too different to the vote that was essentially pre determined by process to take another terrible deal a few years back.
Asking a question you can essentially manufacture and answer for is not a million miles away from not asking it at all in my book.
Past members are absolutely trying to throw more recent members under the bus. For my money they are all as bad as each other. |
The past administrations while the made mistakes and were outmanoeuvred by deception did at least try to follow through with the will of the members.
There's no comparison to this shower who didn't.
But I must stress above all the trust itself isn't the real villain here. The perpetrators of all this saga are. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 14:18]
| |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:25 - Apr 12 with 1022 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:17 - Apr 12 by Chief |
The past administrations while the made mistakes and were outmanoeuvred by deception did at least try to follow through with the will of the members.
There's no comparison to this shower who didn't.
But I must stress above all the trust itself isn't the real villain here. The perpetrators of all this saga are. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 14:18]
|
But there would be no need for deception if they had even the slightest bit of business acumen about them and realise the game had changed the second someone wanted to sell. They were far too slow, to a point where people felt they had to be deceptive to “get out”.
I’d probably do the same as I think many would if they are being honest with themselves. If someone said to me that I could get £10m for my shares and I just have to keep quiet as if I blurt it out then someone may try to stop it, I wouldn’t say a peep. Especially if I knew I couldn’t add any more value to the company than I already have.
I find it very difficult to blame Jenkins et al if I’m being honest. At the end of the day they were shareholders that took a financial risk, they were always going to try and maximise that when they had the chance to.
The only people tasked with safeguarding the club for the fans was the Trust, and they failed at every turn, and failed to listen at every turn which is probably more frustrating.
I don’t have time for any of them really. I’m sure there are a few exceptions. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:34 - Apr 12 with 1014 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:25 - Apr 12 by Dr_Parnassus |
But there would be no need for deception if they had even the slightest bit of business acumen about them and realise the game had changed the second someone wanted to sell. They were far too slow, to a point where people felt they had to be deceptive to “get out”.
I’d probably do the same as I think many would if they are being honest with themselves. If someone said to me that I could get £10m for my shares and I just have to keep quiet as if I blurt it out then someone may try to stop it, I wouldn’t say a peep. Especially if I knew I couldn’t add any more value to the company than I already have.
I find it very difficult to blame Jenkins et al if I’m being honest. At the end of the day they were shareholders that took a financial risk, they were always going to try and maximise that when they had the chance to.
The only people tasked with safeguarding the club for the fans was the Trust, and they failed at every turn, and failed to listen at every turn which is probably more frustrating.
I don’t have time for any of them really. I’m sure there are a few exceptions. |
So you admit there was deception, but you don't place any wrongdoing on the perpetrators of said deception?
It goes back to the age old conundrum in relation to this case. If the deception is calculated enough (it evidently was), how could the victims know they were being deceived?
And of course there's no guarantee that the trust would have been included had they told everyone they wanted to sell, if that's what you are implying should have been their course of action? It's possible the sellouts would have still kept them out of it. They went as far as breaking a binding shareholders agreement to do so. So that's the lengths they went to.
As soon as trust did learn of the sale they contacted all the sellers and told them they wanted to be involved in the negotiations and were open to sell. Not sure what more they could have done short of a court injunction that would really have plunged the club into disarray. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 14:35]
| |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:36 - Apr 12 with 995 views | NotLoyal |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:52 - Apr 12 by Chief |
SI twitter admin: (referring to me)
"Hope you enjoyed it, a more muddled forum contributor and collector of information I’ve yet to meet. But always welcome of course."
Extract from a thread on this forum warning against conflict and abuse:
"there is a respect and privilege attached to being on here"
Hmm |
Maybe your ship has sailed too. Admin have been asked to delete any further muddying of your muddled waters from here on in, enjoy the thread. |  |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:39 - Apr 12 with 982 views | NotLoyal |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:04 - Apr 12 by Dr_Parnassus |
Trust ended for me maybe 7 years ago.
Not many would listen back then, I explained in great detail why the Trust wouldn’t survive another decade. Their only play was to change their aims the second they knew, even got a hint that others wanted to sell.
They lacked foresight, were far too rigid in their aims which didn’t really change until wheels were in motion and far too many of them were self serving, doing so to create some sort of personal legacy.
There are so many instances of wrong doing which obviously would get complained about if I repeated them, but there was repeated error after error for the last 7 years or so.
This recent deal with the Americans being signed behind the backs of the members for me is not too different to the vote that was essentially pre determined by process to take another terrible deal a few years back.
Asking a question you can essentially manufacture and answer for is not a million miles away from not asking it at all in my book.
Past members are absolutely trying to throw more recent members under the bus. For my money they are all as bad as each other. |
I’ve never been a real supporter of any organisation that enlists untrained people to go up against owners who are protecting their millions. Unless it’s political. It’s obvious personal interests were being protected, and all this freebie stuff that has been attached to the trust was in existence from the off. Today and twenty years ago.
They all did it.
They had to do it then and have to do it now. It’s obvious why. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:43 - Apr 12 with 974 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:36 - Apr 12 by NotLoyal |
Maybe your ship has sailed too. Admin have been asked to delete any further muddying of your muddled waters from here on in, enjoy the thread. |
I was looking for clarity and wanted to know where this thread fitted in alongside an apparent disagreement about Fulton and slander towards this site. I was proven correct that it was the case that this is a conflict with an individual and to me it's an obvious case of targeting the player, not the game.
The way this manifested itself and the blatent hypocrisy needed saying even though people may not appreciate the truth of it and the terrible look it gives off.
But yea delete what you want sailor. Sweep it under the carpet and sensor me for my polite deserved scrutiny and keep pretending there's no double standards at play. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:44 - Apr 12 with 969 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:39 - Apr 12 by NotLoyal |
I’ve never been a real supporter of any organisation that enlists untrained people to go up against owners who are protecting their millions. Unless it’s political. It’s obvious personal interests were being protected, and all this freebie stuff that has been attached to the trust was in existence from the off. Today and twenty years ago.
They all did it.
They had to do it then and have to do it now. It’s obvious why. |
Doesn't make it morally or legally correct for them to do so though | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:45 - Apr 12 with 965 views | NotLoyal |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:43 - Apr 12 by Chief |
I was looking for clarity and wanted to know where this thread fitted in alongside an apparent disagreement about Fulton and slander towards this site. I was proven correct that it was the case that this is a conflict with an individual and to me it's an obvious case of targeting the player, not the game.
The way this manifested itself and the blatent hypocrisy needed saying even though people may not appreciate the truth of it and the terrible look it gives off.
But yea delete what you want sailor. Sweep it under the carpet and sensor me for my polite deserved scrutiny and keep pretending there's no double standards at play. |
You were told many times that the proof that you require would breach agreements.
Stop questioning people’s integrity and move on.
Oh, and I was not in the navy. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:49 - Apr 12 with 950 views | Chief |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:45 - Apr 12 by NotLoyal |
You were told many times that the proof that you require would breach agreements.
Stop questioning people’s integrity and move on.
Oh, and I was not in the navy. |
I had moved on, I hadn't mentioned anything about for hours. Just as per how this all started on twitter by a seemingly random attack, it's been repeated again by yourself it seems.
Why are people connected to the administration of the site so intent on spoiling for fights!?
It's a great site, good articles, but you're letting yourselves down. | |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:50 - Apr 12 with 943 views | NotLoyal |
| The trust debate 2 on 14:49 - Apr 12 by Chief |
I had moved on, I hadn't mentioned anything about for hours. Just as per how this all started on twitter by a seemingly random attack, it's been repeated again by yourself it seems.
Why are people connected to the administration of the site so intent on spoiling for fights!?
It's a great site, good articles, but you're letting yourselves down. |
You have been told why, move on.
As for spoiling for a fight, nobody would want that. Seriously. [Post edited 12 Apr 2022 14:50]
| |
| |
| The trust debate 2 on 15:20 - Apr 12 with 869 views | Dr_Winston |
| The trust debate 2 on 13:56 - Apr 12 by Whiterockin |
TBH is anyone interested anymore in what the trust says or does (or doesn't do). As far as I am concerned that boat sailed when they chose not to do what the members voted for. |
To be honest the Trust basically tucked itself up long before that.
A lot of credibility was lost when it was revealed just how tight certain people were with those who they were supposed to be keeping an eye on on behalf of the supporters. Don't think they've ever really recovered from that despite decent work from a few since then.
Recent events are just a more obvious version of that. |  |
| 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 trust debate 2 on 15:44 - Apr 12 with 822 views | Chief |
***Deleted posts**** | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
