| The Trust AGM on 10:49 - Nov 23 with 1500 views | Darran |
| The Trust AGM on 10:14 - Nov 23 by Shaky |
Yes, you've missed something. |
Can I ask you a serious question Shaky?
You've admitted you've never been to the Vetch,you've admitted you've never been to the Liberty and you've admitted you're not a Swans fan.
So why do you care so much about all this?
And before your BFF Chrissy pops along to say I'm trying to supress what you've got to say I'm not I'm just wondering why you care so much and I doubt very much I'm the only one. [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 11:05]
|  |
|  |
| The Trust AGM on 10:52 - Nov 23 with 1485 views | blueytheblue |
| The Trust AGM on 10:49 - Nov 23 by Darran |
Can I ask you a serious question Shaky?
You've admitted you've never been to the Vetch,you've admitted you've never been to the Liberty and you've admitted you're not a Swans fan.
So why do you care so much about all this?
And before your BFF Chrissy pops along to say I'm trying to supress what you've got to say I'm not I'm just wondering why you care so much and I doubt very much I'm the only one. [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 11:05]
|
Interestingly, Dazza, Chrissy berates me for taking an interest. Not so for Shaky.
Seems it's one law for one non Swans fan, one law for another.
#JusticeForTheBlueOne |  |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 10:57 - Nov 23 with 1476 views | waynekerr55 |
| The Trust AGM on 10:52 - Nov 23 by blueytheblue |
Interestingly, Dazza, Chrissy berates me for taking an interest. Not so for Shaky.
Seems it's one law for one non Swans fan, one law for another.
#JusticeForTheBlueOne |
#JusticefortheMalaysian |  |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 10:58 - Nov 23 with 1472 views | Darran |
| The Trust AGM on 10:52 - Nov 23 by blueytheblue |
Interestingly, Dazza, Chrissy berates me for taking an interest. Not so for Shaky.
Seems it's one law for one non Swans fan, one law for another.
#JusticeForTheBlueOne |
Yes I've noticed but Chrissy berates everyone that doesn't agree with him. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 13:31 - Nov 23 with 1381 views | TheResurrection |
I've told Shaky I don't see a conflict of interest with Dai Little providing his services to the Trust. I can see where he's coming from as the Trust keep things (business) close to home, like the Club itself has done over the years - contracts to Dineen, Morgan even Cooze etc
But I know Dai and know also he's a die hard Jack and it's beneficial for the Trust to be able to go to him, at all hours of the day and night, for snippets of advice, guidance etc. They would not be able to do this if they'd gone to A. N. Other etc.
But give me 1 Shaky for 100 Darran's or Blueyman any day of the week. I also know Shaky was advising Phil to make sure to be around the negotiating table and for the Trusts shares to be included in those negotiations and up for sale at the going rate.
He foresaw all this and knew we'd be in a terrible position if we didn't take the lead almost 2 years ago, but for whatever reason Phil and Co. ridiculed him, ignored him and eventually banned him. This was back in the day when Jackanico (Richard Major PWC) was heavily contributing to this forum and also dismissing this strategy out of sight.
We don't hear from him anymore? Why is that Rich? In your hindisght was it bad advice to come out and make noises to the effect the Trust's shares weren't for sale at any price?
As that seems fatally flawed right now? |  |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 13:38 - Nov 23 with 1366 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| The Trust AGM on 10:52 - Nov 23 by blueytheblue |
Interestingly, Dazza, Chrissy berates me for taking an interest. Not so for Shaky.
Seems it's one law for one non Swans fan, one law for another.
#JusticeForTheBlueOne |
Your a f@cking odd ball aye |  |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 13:52 - Nov 23 with 1336 views | Darran |
| The Trust AGM on 13:31 - Nov 23 by TheResurrection |
I've told Shaky I don't see a conflict of interest with Dai Little providing his services to the Trust. I can see where he's coming from as the Trust keep things (business) close to home, like the Club itself has done over the years - contracts to Dineen, Morgan even Cooze etc
But I know Dai and know also he's a die hard Jack and it's beneficial for the Trust to be able to go to him, at all hours of the day and night, for snippets of advice, guidance etc. They would not be able to do this if they'd gone to A. N. Other etc.
But give me 1 Shaky for 100 Darran's or Blueyman any day of the week. I also know Shaky was advising Phil to make sure to be around the negotiating table and for the Trusts shares to be included in those negotiations and up for sale at the going rate.
He foresaw all this and knew we'd be in a terrible position if we didn't take the lead almost 2 years ago, but for whatever reason Phil and Co. ridiculed him, ignored him and eventually banned him. This was back in the day when Jackanico (Richard Major PWC) was heavily contributing to this forum and also dismissing this strategy out of sight.
We don't hear from him anymore? Why is that Rich? In your hindisght was it bad advice to come out and make noises to the effect the Trust's shares weren't for sale at any price?
As that seems fatally flawed right now? |
Yeah but if everyone was a Shaky we wouldn't have a football club,Kodi is a great invention. lol | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 15:52 - Nov 23 with 1262 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 13:31 - Nov 23 by TheResurrection |
I've told Shaky I don't see a conflict of interest with Dai Little providing his services to the Trust. I can see where he's coming from as the Trust keep things (business) close to home, like the Club itself has done over the years - contracts to Dineen, Morgan even Cooze etc
But I know Dai and know also he's a die hard Jack and it's beneficial for the Trust to be able to go to him, at all hours of the day and night, for snippets of advice, guidance etc. They would not be able to do this if they'd gone to A. N. Other etc.
But give me 1 Shaky for 100 Darran's or Blueyman any day of the week. I also know Shaky was advising Phil to make sure to be around the negotiating table and for the Trusts shares to be included in those negotiations and up for sale at the going rate.
He foresaw all this and knew we'd be in a terrible position if we didn't take the lead almost 2 years ago, but for whatever reason Phil and Co. ridiculed him, ignored him and eventually banned him. This was back in the day when Jackanico (Richard Major PWC) was heavily contributing to this forum and also dismissing this strategy out of sight.
We don't hear from him anymore? Why is that Rich? In your hindisght was it bad advice to come out and make noises to the effect the Trust's shares weren't for sale at any price?
As that seems fatally flawed right now? |
A couple of points of order here.
Obviously I agree with you on Dai, and particularly for the reasons you outline. Never before has the Trust relied on such expertise, plus the contacts to obtain additional specialist assistance where required.
However, I have to say there's a rewriting of history below. The Americans v2.0 deal is completely different from the v1.0 with Moores and Noell. The first deal was in plain sight, the Trust had an offer, had the opportunity to meet the buyers, perform due diligence and come to a conclusion whether that deal was right for the club and the members or not. It was also a staged deal over a period of time, and even then not going to the 75%. This deal couldn't be more different in that regard, and so to extrapolate the Trust's decision from one deal to the other is flawed.
The issue here is the Trust's exclusion from the discussions until the deal was pretty much signed and sealed. It's pretty clear if the discussions that took place between April and July had taken place 3 months earlier the Trust would have come to the conclusion that at least a partial sale was worth investigating, as it did. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Trust AGM on 20:56 - Nov 23 with 1172 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust AGM on 15:52 - Nov 23 by Uxbridge |
A couple of points of order here.
Obviously I agree with you on Dai, and particularly for the reasons you outline. Never before has the Trust relied on such expertise, plus the contacts to obtain additional specialist assistance where required.
However, I have to say there's a rewriting of history below. The Americans v2.0 deal is completely different from the v1.0 with Moores and Noell. The first deal was in plain sight, the Trust had an offer, had the opportunity to meet the buyers, perform due diligence and come to a conclusion whether that deal was right for the club and the members or not. It was also a staged deal over a period of time, and even then not going to the 75%. This deal couldn't be more different in that regard, and so to extrapolate the Trust's decision from one deal to the other is flawed.
The issue here is the Trust's exclusion from the discussions until the deal was pretty much signed and sealed. It's pretty clear if the discussions that took place between April and July had taken place 3 months earlier the Trust would have come to the conclusion that at least a partial sale was worth investigating, as it did. |
A point of order indeed.
The Noell and Moore's deal was a precursor for what was obviously to come next. It was at this point the Trust made some terrible errors of judgements that are costing us today.
It was made clear back then the Trusts shares were not for sale. It was also a massive chance to regroup and consider the very serious outcome that new owners could come in and take the mickey... Which they've done and done so right under our noses. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 20:59 - Nov 23 with 1164 views | TheResurrection |
Do you know what, And, this pisses me off more than anything, the constant making of excuses or trying to play down the Trusts terrible errors of judgements.
Forget all that bullshit and for gods sake hold your hands up collectively and bloody say sorry, we messed up....!!!
Maybe then you'll start getting the true respect you really need. [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 21:01]
| |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 21:10 - Nov 23 with 1134 views | Darran |
| The Trust AGM on 20:59 - Nov 23 by TheResurrection |
Do you know what, And, this pisses me off more than anything, the constant making of excuses or trying to play down the Trusts terrible errors of judgements.
Forget all that bullshit and for gods sake hold your hands up collectively and bloody say sorry, we messed up....!!!
Maybe then you'll start getting the true respect you really need. [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 21:01]
|
They have. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 21:36 - Nov 23 with 1095 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 20:59 - Nov 23 by TheResurrection |
Do you know what, And, this pisses me off more than anything, the constant making of excuses or trying to play down the Trusts terrible errors of judgements.
Forget all that bullshit and for gods sake hold your hands up collectively and bloody say sorry, we messed up....!!!
Maybe then you'll start getting the true respect you really need. [Post edited 23 Nov 2016 21:01]
|
Facts, not excuses. Indisputable ones. And I'm getting equally bored of the constant calls to apologise for perceived mistakes. The Trust has apologised for the SD issue where it was absolutely called for but I don't see what there is to apologise for here.
You say the Trust said it would never, under any circumstances, sell. Well that's news to me. True it goes against the Trust aims and the wishes of its members, and indeed the recommendations last time but events need to be judged accordingly. Even now, I'm far from convinced the members will vote in favour of a share sale, if the comments on social media are any guide. The Trust selling shares could never be its default and favoured position.
So, what mistakes has the Trust made in the last two years that could have led to a different situation to where we are now? I'm still not sure how the Trust was supposed to have been aware of this deal beforehand if it was deliberately kept out of the loop, even with a SD who by most comments was far too close. I'm not sure how further separation for example would have changed matters.. The Trust tried to get to 25% several times which would have potentially acted as a break but clearly there was no will to allow the Trust to that position.
For me, the events are clear. After the last deal and the Trust informing the members, the sale was kept away from the Trust until it was impossible to do so. How was the Trust supposed to resolve that?
I'm all for the Trust learning lessons. God knows there have been plenty to learn. There are no doubt plenty in this whole exercise. However I'm not sure how we'd be in a different situation to now or that would have made a material difference. I'm genuinely interested in what concrete actions you think the Trust should have taken over the last 18 months that would have resulted in a different position to now. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 22:52 - Nov 23 with 1002 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust AGM on 21:36 - Nov 23 by Uxbridge |
Facts, not excuses. Indisputable ones. And I'm getting equally bored of the constant calls to apologise for perceived mistakes. The Trust has apologised for the SD issue where it was absolutely called for but I don't see what there is to apologise for here.
You say the Trust said it would never, under any circumstances, sell. Well that's news to me. True it goes against the Trust aims and the wishes of its members, and indeed the recommendations last time but events need to be judged accordingly. Even now, I'm far from convinced the members will vote in favour of a share sale, if the comments on social media are any guide. The Trust selling shares could never be its default and favoured position.
So, what mistakes has the Trust made in the last two years that could have led to a different situation to where we are now? I'm still not sure how the Trust was supposed to have been aware of this deal beforehand if it was deliberately kept out of the loop, even with a SD who by most comments was far too close. I'm not sure how further separation for example would have changed matters.. The Trust tried to get to 25% several times which would have potentially acted as a break but clearly there was no will to allow the Trust to that position.
For me, the events are clear. After the last deal and the Trust informing the members, the sale was kept away from the Trust until it was impossible to do so. How was the Trust supposed to resolve that?
I'm all for the Trust learning lessons. God knows there have been plenty to learn. There are no doubt plenty in this whole exercise. However I'm not sure how we'd be in a different situation to now or that would have made a material difference. I'm genuinely interested in what concrete actions you think the Trust should have taken over the last 18 months that would have resulted in a different position to now. |
Just quickly as I don't want to get embroiled in an argument with you as feel the time to unite is upon us. However, it would be so much easier to unite if myself, and clearly others, felt we had some closure from what we consider some terrible errors of judgement.
So without any real careful thought and this list won't be exhaustive, but....
* When the strong debate of conflicts of interest were being discussed on this very message board over the last 2 to 3 years, the Trust officials knew full well that there was a whole lot more to it, especially knowing Cooze's "wages" - What a chance to become transparent right there, right then... but no, what did you all do? You played it down and made it seem completely insignificant and came out publicly and basically lied to us all, your members included.
* I'm sure, this message board and others, the Trust officials made it quite clear their shares weren't for sale at any price. This effectively gave the selling shareholders the excuse to exclude the Trust.
* Going back to Cooze... knowing what we all do now and what the Trust had known for years, how the fack was he allowed to carry on in his position at such a vital time in our clubs recent history? This beggars belief and is absolute gross negligence on behalf of all of you. This led to negotiations taking place under his nose, visits from Americans in the Directors box and effectively our club being sold from beneath our feet.
* the 25% argument means nothing and never has. The selling shareholders WERE NEVER going to relinquish any % of their shares no matter how small as they knew by doing that the value of any personal future windfall would diminish in front of their very eyes. Talking about it or asking for it was naive to the extreme.
* you ignored good advice and foresight as to what the future could hold for us once American "investors" could be stepping in. You were advised to take a strong stance and get a firm grip in the Boardroom to make sure you would unequivocally be involved in any future share sale, as it was coming, oh boy was it coming and we ALL knew that!!
* You have tried to hide behind some governance charter just to protect the people that were on the Trust or still are. You did not heed the very clear lesson of the last Supporters Director who was allowed to manipulate his way from the Trust Boardroom to the Club Boardroom before making himself a multi-millionaire.
* All of the above was highlighted to you all over and over again and we did not want or expect to see the closing of the stable door once the horse was bolting all over the Liberty field, we actually hoped you would have taken the action back then - when it mattered. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 01:21 - Nov 24 with 914 views | costalotta |
| The Trust AGM on 22:52 - Nov 23 by TheResurrection |
Just quickly as I don't want to get embroiled in an argument with you as feel the time to unite is upon us. However, it would be so much easier to unite if myself, and clearly others, felt we had some closure from what we consider some terrible errors of judgement.
So without any real careful thought and this list won't be exhaustive, but....
* When the strong debate of conflicts of interest were being discussed on this very message board over the last 2 to 3 years, the Trust officials knew full well that there was a whole lot more to it, especially knowing Cooze's "wages" - What a chance to become transparent right there, right then... but no, what did you all do? You played it down and made it seem completely insignificant and came out publicly and basically lied to us all, your members included.
* I'm sure, this message board and others, the Trust officials made it quite clear their shares weren't for sale at any price. This effectively gave the selling shareholders the excuse to exclude the Trust.
* Going back to Cooze... knowing what we all do now and what the Trust had known for years, how the fack was he allowed to carry on in his position at such a vital time in our clubs recent history? This beggars belief and is absolute gross negligence on behalf of all of you. This led to negotiations taking place under his nose, visits from Americans in the Directors box and effectively our club being sold from beneath our feet.
* the 25% argument means nothing and never has. The selling shareholders WERE NEVER going to relinquish any % of their shares no matter how small as they knew by doing that the value of any personal future windfall would diminish in front of their very eyes. Talking about it or asking for it was naive to the extreme.
* you ignored good advice and foresight as to what the future could hold for us once American "investors" could be stepping in. You were advised to take a strong stance and get a firm grip in the Boardroom to make sure you would unequivocally be involved in any future share sale, as it was coming, oh boy was it coming and we ALL knew that!!
* You have tried to hide behind some governance charter just to protect the people that were on the Trust or still are. You did not heed the very clear lesson of the last Supporters Director who was allowed to manipulate his way from the Trust Boardroom to the Club Boardroom before making himself a multi-millionaire.
* All of the above was highlighted to you all over and over again and we did not want or expect to see the closing of the stable door once the horse was bolting all over the Liberty field, we actually hoped you would have taken the action back then - when it mattered. |
100% spot on. |  | | |
| The Trust AGM on 08:57 - Nov 24 with 835 views | Uxbridge |
The first paragraph I totally agree with. The time to unite is no doubt upon us. The Trust can only be as strong as its membership and support base.
As for the rest, there's bits I agree with, bits I don't and stuff I think is plain wrong, but we've gone over that. Either way, I'm still not clear which actions would have resulted in a different situation to where we are now. Get a strong grip and force the others not to collude? Afraid I think that's pie in the sky. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 09:28 - Nov 24 with 817 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust AGM on 08:57 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
The first paragraph I totally agree with. The time to unite is no doubt upon us. The Trust can only be as strong as its membership and support base.
As for the rest, there's bits I agree with, bits I don't and stuff I think is plain wrong, but we've gone over that. Either way, I'm still not clear which actions would have resulted in a different situation to where we are now. Get a strong grip and force the others not to collude? Afraid I think that's pie in the sky. |
You're doing exactly what you've done over the last few years.... You're not learning from mistakes, you're trying to dismiss them, make light of them or even worse give one person's opinion on why you don't see a problem.
The same we had from you throughout the whole period of time Cooze was in the spotlight.
Please.... Tell me what's wrong in anything I've said?
Please tell me why Jim White especially still serves on the Trust Board?
And please tell me why any of us should have any faith or trust in you in light of my earlier post?
The Trust simply are not strong enough to deal with what's going on, they're not even strong enough to get their own house in order. You are simply out to look after the interests and reputations of the Trust Board members.
This is why, this right here is why the Trust are being questioned.
You're not doing yourselves or the fans any favours and this needs to be addressed immediately.
As a mate of mine said,there's no teeth in the Trust, it's being run by a bunch of trainspotters.
Massively disappointed. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 09:45 - Nov 24 with 799 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 09:28 - Nov 24 by TheResurrection |
You're doing exactly what you've done over the last few years.... You're not learning from mistakes, you're trying to dismiss them, make light of them or even worse give one person's opinion on why you don't see a problem.
The same we had from you throughout the whole period of time Cooze was in the spotlight.
Please.... Tell me what's wrong in anything I've said?
Please tell me why Jim White especially still serves on the Trust Board?
And please tell me why any of us should have any faith or trust in you in light of my earlier post?
The Trust simply are not strong enough to deal with what's going on, they're not even strong enough to get their own house in order. You are simply out to look after the interests and reputations of the Trust Board members.
This is why, this right here is why the Trust are being questioned.
You're not doing yourselves or the fans any favours and this needs to be addressed immediately.
As a mate of mine said,there's no teeth in the Trust, it's being run by a bunch of trainspotters.
Massively disappointed. |
There were issues with the SD role and around remuneration. This was identified and a solution put in place to ensure such things could never happen again. Issues with CoI have been dealt with and solutions put in place to ensure there are no accusations in the future or things not being transparent. This is all good progress. This is learning from mistakes.
Replacing Huw earlier, taking a more aggressive role in the boardroom etc may well have been the right things to do. However, and I'm noting you're not answering my question, how would have that changed the situation we're in now. How would the Trust being more aggressive made the sellers more willing to keep the Trust in the loop. It's a completely contradictory argument.
Why have faith in the Trust? Well, to be blunt, who else would be guaranteed have the long term interests of the football club at heart? You have sellers who have looked to feather their own nests with scant regard for who they were selling to (to the point where the chairman admitted in the London forum he didn't know who was funding the deal). You have the buyers who have singularly failed to engage with the fanbase or the Trust, and are making decisions with zero consultation. Without the Trust, the actions to date would have remained hidden. Without the Trust, there is simply no voice of the fans at the club, no-one to seek to hold to account.
One other things, Prosser has a point on his other thread. Your free pass to the sellers doesn't make sense. 4 are still shareholders, two are still active at the club, two are still directors and a third is attempting to become one. They are far from irrelevant. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 09:50 - Nov 24 with 792 views | Shaky |
| The Trust AGM on 08:57 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
The first paragraph I totally agree with. The time to unite is no doubt upon us. The Trust can only be as strong as its membership and support base.
As for the rest, there's bits I agree with, bits I don't and stuff I think is plain wrong, but we've gone over that. Either way, I'm still not clear which actions would have resulted in a different situation to where we are now. Get a strong grip and force the others not to collude? Afraid I think that's pie in the sky. |
I'll take that one.
After the Moores approach had been rebuffed it was clear that the shareholders wanted to sell. In fact Phil has said on several occasions the "Trust" was aware of that, although I suspect you were fully occupied in some mutual backslapping over your phyric victory.
What did you do? Twice tried to buy out the red herring 4% stake at a derisory knockdown price, in effect slapping the old shareholders in the face.
What should you have done? Said look, we understand your desire to sell. Let's work together to formulate a set of criteria defining a worthy long term partner and together implement an M&A search process.
Had you done that this could all have been avoided.
Huge fcuking blunder, that set in train the set of events that led to where we are now. And you know what, I said exactly that in realtime from my position in exile. |  |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 09:53 - Nov 24 with 791 views | Darran |
| The Trust AGM on 09:50 - Nov 24 by Shaky |
I'll take that one.
After the Moores approach had been rebuffed it was clear that the shareholders wanted to sell. In fact Phil has said on several occasions the "Trust" was aware of that, although I suspect you were fully occupied in some mutual backslapping over your phyric victory.
What did you do? Twice tried to buy out the red herring 4% stake at a derisory knockdown price, in effect slapping the old shareholders in the face.
What should you have done? Said look, we understand your desire to sell. Let's work together to formulate a set of criteria defining a worthy long term partner and together implement an M&A search process.
Had you done that this could all have been avoided.
Huge fcuking blunder, that set in train the set of events that led to where we are now. And you know what, I said exactly that in realtime from my position in exile. |
We? | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 10:08 - Nov 24 with 778 views | TheResurrection |
You know what, forget this Trust if that's your attitude And.
Don't blow smoke up my ass. Deal with the issues we have highlighted and deal with them properly.
Shaky has answered your last incredulous post on my behalf,
. I cannot believe you have the absolute temerity to excuse the last few years.
If this is the continued attitude we need to be demanding a new Trust Board.
And free pass to the selling shareholders? WTF are you on about? Are you as dull as Darran?? Believe me, you don't know the half of it. I've never had any time for them and certainly don't now.
But what can we do about it now with you lot dithering and twiddling your fingers. You ain't got a bloody fight in you and you're hiding behind your confidentiality nonsense.
I think some of you need to step aside and let in people with some balls who can really take it to the sell outs. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 10:12 - Nov 24 with 774 views | Shaky |
BTW, who came up with the bright idea of offering to buy the 4% stake at a knockdown price?
Because i have no doubt that idiotic piece of autistic opportunism would have done much to convince the old shareholders that you had no understanding whatsoever of their totally legitimate wish to sell. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 10:17 - Nov 24 with 767 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 10:08 - Nov 24 by TheResurrection |
You know what, forget this Trust if that's your attitude And.
Don't blow smoke up my ass. Deal with the issues we have highlighted and deal with them properly.
Shaky has answered your last incredulous post on my behalf,
. I cannot believe you have the absolute temerity to excuse the last few years.
If this is the continued attitude we need to be demanding a new Trust Board.
And free pass to the selling shareholders? WTF are you on about? Are you as dull as Darran?? Believe me, you don't know the half of it. I've never had any time for them and certainly don't now.
But what can we do about it now with you lot dithering and twiddling your fingers. You ain't got a bloody fight in you and you're hiding behind your confidentiality nonsense.
I think some of you need to step aside and let in people with some balls who can really take it to the sell outs. |
I think this is where I usually ask you to stand Chris.
I'm not the Trust. The views I post are my own. There'll be 15 other views out there. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 10:28 - Nov 24 with 751 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 09:50 - Nov 24 by Shaky |
I'll take that one.
After the Moores approach had been rebuffed it was clear that the shareholders wanted to sell. In fact Phil has said on several occasions the "Trust" was aware of that, although I suspect you were fully occupied in some mutual backslapping over your phyric victory.
What did you do? Twice tried to buy out the red herring 4% stake at a derisory knockdown price, in effect slapping the old shareholders in the face.
What should you have done? Said look, we understand your desire to sell. Let's work together to formulate a set of criteria defining a worthy long term partner and together implement an M&A search process.
Had you done that this could all have been avoided.
Huge fcuking blunder, that set in train the set of events that led to where we are now. And you know what, I said exactly that in realtime from my position in exile. |
Given that the sellers sold to the first offer that came to the table, dismissing further discussions with a different investor which potentially would have benefitted the club and indeed city more, I'm far from convinced this would have been avoided because criteria for a "worthy" partner was outlined.
Of course the Trust knew the sellers were looking to sell. There's no issue with that. Frankly the moment the $ signs were in their eyes, the old model was broken. The problems begin where the Trust were deliberately excluded in case these "worthy" long-term partners were deemed otherwise. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 10:28 - Nov 24 with 747 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust AGM on 10:17 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
I think this is where I usually ask you to stand Chris.
I'm not the Trust. The views I post are my own. There'll be 15 other views out there. |
I applaud you putting yourself out there Andrew, that takes guts, but something has to change, starting with the excuse making of the last couple of awful years. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 10:46 - Nov 24 with 725 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 10:28 - Nov 24 by TheResurrection |
I applaud you putting yourself out there Andrew, that takes guts, but something has to change, starting with the excuse making of the last couple of awful years. |
Cheers. I'm not making excuses Chris. I think there were major errors made by the Trust particularly around transparency and segregation of duties that absolutely had to be resolved. There are no doubt things would have done differently in hindsight, but then that's always the case.
I do disagree on whether we could have changed where we are now though. That's not making excuses, that's just my view.
As for the Trust going forward, I think a lot of that will depend on time. We have a new SD, who I think is an excellent appointment, but then I would say that. I do think the Trust is aware that it had to get its house in order, hence the recent governance docs (which are a starting basis, and need to be continually reviewed). I think that's a bigger step forward than you're giving it credit for, but again I would say that. The rest, particularly about restoring trust, will take time.
The challenge for the Trust in the future, and indeed the fans, is a monumental one. Everything's up for grabs.
Should the Trust retain its stake? That's the logical path based on the Trust's founding aims, but without influence what would be the point? Although, on the flip side, the valuation of the club is going nowhere but upwards as long as it stays in the PL. Plummets if we go down, but then we could get promoted again, which happens more often than not. Either way, a proper partnership with the majority owners would need to be formalised. What's the best way to do that, jaw jaw or war war (as in push the legal buttons)?
Should the Trust sell? If sell, should it sell a percentage or the whole lot? Must admit I'm not a big fan of the partial sale option ... as counsel advised 2 years ago, that just institutionalises the lack of influence of the shareholding, plus is limited in terms of what can do with the money. However would a half sale give a sufficient nestegg if things go wrong. Is it better to get out entirely? But then, how does that tally with the Trust's aims of having a stake and influencing the club.
That's my point really. There are so many factors at play here. What may seem the obvious path to one person will look wrong to another. Either way, it'll be a decision for the members. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.