Please log in to use all the site's facilities
|Trust Board Minutes for 6th November|
at 13:26 7 Dec 2017
Shouldn't these minutes have been published by now?
Aren't they usually released on the day after the next meeting - which means they are 2 days late?
at 09:47 17 Nov 2017
Could Phil, Matt or Ux please clarify something in relation to the NDA.
It has been stated that Board Members are currently inhibited from going into the exact detail of the deal's amended terms yet it has also been stated that the Trust will come back to members for consultation before the new terms are accepted. At that point the Trust would have to give us details of the amended terms.
So what it is that makes it OK to talk to us about the new terms in say a few weeks time when it's not OK to talk about them now? What needs to happen in order that the NDA is no longer binding on the Trust?
|TRUST: When is the result of the vote announced?|
at 07:28 16 Aug 2017
At least 3 people , me included, have asked when the result of the deal/no deal vote is to be announced. I think those may be buried in 3 different threads, so here is a thread all of it's own.
Could somebody from the Trust Board please let us all know?
|Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action|
at 16:13 21 Jul 2017
I’ve reviewed the Consultation Papers that arrived today and they are well presented and clear. Personally I could have added a couple more lines to the Pro’s section for legal action but it is specifically it is the aspect of legal fees in the Consultation Papers has left me with major gripes.
The first thing is that we don’t seem to have got a quotation or even an estimate of the legal costs of going ahead with legal action. If we did get a quotation or estimate then it has not been included in the documentation. Has the Trust Board asked for an estimate, was one provided and what are the details ?
What about a "No-Win / No-Fee" type of legal engagement– mentioned by Dai Little in the first Trust meeting yet I can see no mention of this in the documentation?
Regarding the magnitude of legal costs, the words we are given are:
(a) In the Options Matrix, Impact on Trust Funds section: “Likely substantial reduction, possibly wiped out completely, or worse”.
(b) In the Cons section of Option 2: “Legal action is costly and unpredictable. There is a real chance the Trust could lose, in which case the existing funds of over £800,000 could be wiped out or even lead to the Trust being in debt. If legal costs were to exceed the current Trust funds, which is a likely scenario, it is unclear at this time how the Trust would be able to fund these costs – which may impact the Trust’s ability to proceed beyond that point”.
Regarding (a), no detail is provided as to exactly what “worse” means in practical terms and how we would deal with it.
Also, there is a big contradiction between funds “possibly” wiped out in (a) and a “likely” scenario of debt in (b) which means it’s probable. So I don’t know whether the Trust Board thinks it’s just possible or that it's probable and exactly on what that judgement is based.
For me, the really disappointing words here in (b) are “it is unclear at this time how the Trust would be able to fund these costs”. The Trust Board has known about the potential for legal action for many many months so has had more than ample time to take advice, have a clear view, have a plan and identify a proposed approach if the funds aren’t sufficient for legal action.
On the basis of these Papers, I feel that not enough effort has gone into establishing what litigation really means in £ terms of legal costs and how the Trust could/would fund it, possibly because we have been distracted by what the Trust Board consider an acceptable offer.
at 17:28 13 Jul 2017
I've just received and completed the voting paper for Trust Board Members.
I noticed that there is no number or unique identifying mark on the voting sheet.
So unless the bar code on the envelope is unique to my membership number, what is stopping anybody just photocopying the form and returning it in another envelope?
Unless of course only voting papers returned in the official envelope are considered legit?
I'm not bothered at all about this issue for the Board elections but I am worried that , with the money at stake, the vote for Deal v Legal Action presents more temptation for dishonest people to try and cheat the vote if they can.
Could somebody from the Trust please give some assurance on this issue?
|Well done Manchester|
at 19:22 4 Jun 2017
For packing out Old Trafford after all that's happened.
Not letting them win.
at 08:42 6 May 2017
The latest company accounts are now available on the Companies House website.
I'll leave it for the accountants on here to comment on the detail but the things I did pick up was confirmation of no dividends, a large increase in football staff numbers and the lack of detail regarding "Transactions with Directors". The previous accounts used to have some good detail about payments to directors companies but this is now presented in a different format and you can't tell who's had what anymore - maybe this is due to the new accounting policy adopted or maybe they don't want to volunteer that information anymore?
|Company Accounts Overdue|
at 18:59 1 May 2017
SCFC company accounts for the year ending 31st July 2016 should have been submitted to Companies House by 30th April 2017 but aren't yet showing on Companies House website.
A couple of questions for our accounting types :-
(1) Could the accounts have been filed by the required date but not yet deposited on the website ?
(2) If the club has been late filing , is that something to be concerned about or is there "nothing to see here" ?
There's apparently a fine for late filing (£150 for being up to a month late) so maybe they don't want these accounts released until the season finishes for whatever reason.
|Potential Trust meeting to consider legal action|
at 18:59 21 Apr 2017
I think that delaying potential legal action until after the season finishes was a reasonable decision by the Trust Board , although I have to admit that I would just have quickly backed them if they'd decided to go for it a few weeks ago.
Having decided that we will wait until after the West Brom game, I think the Trust should now fix a date in people's calendars for a meeting the week following that match in order to discuss/propose/agree what we are going to do.
Fair enough to delay it till West Brom but absolutely no longer than that please.
|A question for our American posters|
at 15:45 4 Dec 2016
UK companies have to submit an Annual Return (recently re-named a Confirmation Statement) and in these documents we have been able to see who owns shares in Swansea City Football Club. We can see these documents on a public website run by a Government body called Companies House. These documents have to be submitted by every Limited Company.
Our parent company is Swansea City Football 2002 Limited and the recently submitted Confirmation Statement shows that an American Company - Swansea Football LLC - holds around 67% of the shares in the football club.
The question is does the US have a comparable document that needs to published by each LLC that will show the shareholding in the American company that now owns our most of the club's shares?
It seems like there is still is still doubt as to who actually owns our club and I'm wondering if that information is freely available to public as it is in the UK.
|Leigh Dineen back on the Board |
at 17:04 21 Nov 2016
Companies House are recording his appointment as a Director.
So, a week or so after the Trust approach the club regarding former Directors still hanging around the club (my words, not theirs) , the club go and re-appoint one of them as a Director.
It feels to me like the Yanks are taking the p*ss
I wonder if the Trust were aware of this move ?
|Potential External Investment |
at 15:51 1 Oct 2014
I don't know whether anything will happen regarding potential external investors or what that will really mean for us a supporters and shareholders.
What needs to happen though is that the Trust must truly represent the supporters' views in these Board discussions. Having a 20% holding is a significant proportion of shares and we can have an impact on any decisions made.
Firstly, there needs to be communication down from Huw Cooze to the Trust Board as to the nature of discussions and the implications. That communication then needs to be cascaded down to the full membership and some sort of feedback process implemented to take on board our views.
When eventually we have the full picture regarding what is being proposed and its implications, members can take a view and Huw should take a mandate from the Trust Membership to the club board as to how we would like him to proceed on our behalf.
This an important issue for the supporters and we cannot let things get done behind closed doors without full consultation with the whole Trust membership.
Indeed, there are sufficient Trust funds available for us to engage independent advisors/consultants to provide a more measured view if necessary.
If you're not a member of the Trust already, I would urge you to join so that your voice can be heard at the appropriate time if necessary.
|Forum Votes: ||122|
|Comment Votes: ||0|
|Prediction League: ||0|