| The Trust AGM on 10:59 - Nov 24 with 1429 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust AGM on 10:46 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
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. |
Well take this to the members right now.
Let's get the ball rolling, lets see the transparency and lets see real action from the Trust.
Engage more with the fans - talk to them, make them aware of the options, the pitfalls, the potential outcomes.
Let's get everything out there so we can all agree on a course of action - not just 15 men and women, who no offence, haven't exacrtly covered themselves in any glory. |  |
|  |
| The Trust AGM on 11:07 - Nov 24 with 1406 views | Oldjack |
| The Trust AGM on 10:59 - Nov 24 by TheResurrection |
Well take this to the members right now.
Let's get the ball rolling, lets see the transparency and lets see real action from the Trust.
Engage more with the fans - talk to them, make them aware of the options, the pitfalls, the potential outcomes.
Let's get everything out there so we can all agree on a course of action - not just 15 men and women, who no offence, haven't exacrtly covered themselves in any glory. |
One Question ...... why aren't you playing an acting roll in the Trust ? i like your style scared of no one and licks no one's arse |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| The Trust AGM on 11:16 - Nov 24 with 1397 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 10:59 - Nov 24 by TheResurrection |
Well take this to the members right now.
Let's get the ball rolling, lets see the transparency and lets see real action from the Trust.
Engage more with the fans - talk to them, make them aware of the options, the pitfalls, the potential outcomes.
Let's get everything out there so we can all agree on a course of action - not just 15 men and women, who no offence, haven't exacrtly covered themselves in any glory. |
We went to the members last month.
Next time we go to the members, we need a decision to be made. Without any offer on the table, we can't ask the members to vote on that. A vote to take legal action against the sellers and buyers? Sure, but to what end. That would no doubt close off the dialogue between the buyers and the Trust. By definition it has to be a last resort.
As it stands, too many unknowns, or at least I don't believe it's the view of the Trust that relations with the Americans are terminal just yet. |  |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 11:17 - Nov 24 with 1389 views | Shaky |
| The Trust AGM on 10:46 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
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. |
I sincerely hope that mental what-if maze is purely a reflection of your personal bewilderment, and that somewhere within the "Trust" there is some clear thinking and - dare we hope - leadership.
1) You need to get a competent lawyer specialising in company law to tell you what it means that there is a controlling shareholder. The short version is that he controls the company, and has no obligation towards minorities whatsoever other than safeguarding your share of the economic value, and reporting various matters. You in effect have a financial investment
2) You can ask the controlling shareholder if he will give up or share some of his powers of control, as you have alredy done with the multi-ultimatums. You need to listen to the answer. Don't be so pathetic as to keep asking the same thing again and again. Every time just weakens your position further.
3. As I said you in effect have a financial investment. Will it go up in value in the future? Maybe, but the Trust has no mandate or expertise whatsoever to become an investment firm 100% invested in an undiversified portfolio consisting of a single unlisted investment. Sheer bloody madness. [Post edited 25 Nov 2016 9:13]
|  |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 11:24 - Nov 24 with 1375 views | DafyddHuw |
| The Trust AGM on 11:16 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
We went to the members last month.
Next time we go to the members, we need a decision to be made. Without any offer on the table, we can't ask the members to vote on that. A vote to take legal action against the sellers and buyers? Sure, but to what end. That would no doubt close off the dialogue between the buyers and the Trust. By definition it has to be a last resort.
As it stands, too many unknowns, or at least I don't believe it's the view of the Trust that relations with the Americans are terminal just yet. |
"... or at least I don't believe it's the view of the Trust that relations with the Americans are terminal just yet."
Why not? What have the buyers ever done to lead the Trust to that view? |  | | |
| The Trust AGM on 11:24 - Nov 24 with 1368 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust AGM on 11:16 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
We went to the members last month.
Next time we go to the members, we need a decision to be made. Without any offer on the table, we can't ask the members to vote on that. A vote to take legal action against the sellers and buyers? Sure, but to what end. That would no doubt close off the dialogue between the buyers and the Trust. By definition it has to be a last resort.
As it stands, too many unknowns, or at least I don't believe it's the view of the Trust that relations with the Americans are terminal just yet. |
It's not the last resort, it's our only resort. We can't work with them, they don't want to work with us.
All this still being involved is making us complicit and surely would jeopardise any future unfair prejudice claim.
We've been unfairly prejudiced already, they are making decisions and excluding the Trust who once had a say on Club matters. They bought the Club and ignored the existing shareholders agreement, the one Jenkins lawyer attempted to get you to waive.
Get those nasty bastards lit lawyers Dai talks about on the case, right now, before this car crash trundles on any longer. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 11:25 - Nov 24 with 1364 views | Shaky |
| The Trust AGM on 11:16 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
We went to the members last month.
Next time we go to the members, we need a decision to be made. Without any offer on the table, we can't ask the members to vote on that. A vote to take legal action against the sellers and buyers? Sure, but to what end. That would no doubt close off the dialogue between the buyers and the Trust. By definition it has to be a last resort.
As it stands, too many unknowns, or at least I don't believe it's the view of the Trust that relations with the Americans are terminal just yet. |
in my opinion the Trust would engender significantly greater respect and influence from a position with £20-25 million in the bank, than continuing these pathetic begging missions.
An ultimatum means an ultimatum goddamit. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 11:26 - Nov 24 with 1366 views | Smellyplumz |
| The Trust AGM on 11:16 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
We went to the members last month.
Next time we go to the members, we need a decision to be made. Without any offer on the table, we can't ask the members to vote on that. A vote to take legal action against the sellers and buyers? Sure, but to what end. That would no doubt close off the dialogue between the buyers and the Trust. By definition it has to be a last resort.
As it stands, too many unknowns, or at least I don't believe it's the view of the Trust that relations with the Americans are terminal just yet. |
What dialogue?? the buyers are just putting the middle finger up at the trust and well you know it.
do you have a legal case or not, yes or no if yes put it to the members this week. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Trust AGM on 11:33 - Nov 24 with 1359 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 11:17 - Nov 24 by Shaky |
I sincerely hope that mental what-if maze is purely a reflection of your personal bewilderment, and that somewhere within the "Trust" there is some clear thinking and - dare we hope - leadership.
1) You need to get a competent lawyer specialising in company law to tell you what it means that there is a controlling shareholder. The short version is that he controls the company, and has no obligation towards minorities whatsoever other than safeguarding your share of the economic value, and reporting various matters. You in effect have a financial investment
2) You can ask the controlling shareholder if he will give up or share some of his powers of control, as you have alredy done with the multi-ultimatums. You need to listen to the answer. Don't be so pathetic as to keep asking the same thing again and again. Every time just weakens your position further.
3. As I said you in effect have a financial investment. Will it go up in value in the future? Maybe, but the Trust has no mandate or expertise whatsoever to become an investment firm 100% invested in an undiversified portfolio consisting of a single unlisted investment. Sheer bloody madness. [Post edited 25 Nov 2016 9:13]
|
And in a nutshell you demonstrate the difference in terms of looking at this as an investor in a business, to a fans organisation in a football club. You seem to have no affinity, or understanding, for the latter.
The Trust has more than competent legal advice. It has also called on specialists in other legal fields where required.
HSBC doesn't have a 21% shareholder looking after the interests of its clients, making sure bank charges are kept low, interest rates are high etc. You can't compare the two companies. Football clubs are, by their very definition, affected by the views and whims of their fans more than any other type of company. Agitate the fanbase, watch performances stutter and watch your investment fall in value. You're looking at this from a purely legal perspective, and that is just one (albeit significant) factor here. As Chris has so eloquently underlined, the fans can influence events to hold the majority owners to account and a strong fans representative has more chance of getting those controls.
Funnily enough, the Trust indeed has a mandate to keep its shareholding and not sell. It's a founding principle of the Trust. The members have continually voted in favour of keeping any funds to increase the stake above all else. Not that it's something I'm advocating as an absolute, however it'll be a factor for some members when thinking about whether the Trust should sell or not. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 11:39 - Nov 24 with 1348 views | Shaky |
| The Trust AGM on 11:33 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
And in a nutshell you demonstrate the difference in terms of looking at this as an investor in a business, to a fans organisation in a football club. You seem to have no affinity, or understanding, for the latter.
The Trust has more than competent legal advice. It has also called on specialists in other legal fields where required.
HSBC doesn't have a 21% shareholder looking after the interests of its clients, making sure bank charges are kept low, interest rates are high etc. You can't compare the two companies. Football clubs are, by their very definition, affected by the views and whims of their fans more than any other type of company. Agitate the fanbase, watch performances stutter and watch your investment fall in value. You're looking at this from a purely legal perspective, and that is just one (albeit significant) factor here. As Chris has so eloquently underlined, the fans can influence events to hold the majority owners to account and a strong fans representative has more chance of getting those controls.
Funnily enough, the Trust indeed has a mandate to keep its shareholding and not sell. It's a founding principle of the Trust. The members have continually voted in favour of keeping any funds to increase the stake above all else. Not that it's something I'm advocating as an absolute, however it'll be a factor for some members when thinking about whether the Trust should sell or not. |
You are missing the point, deliberately or otherwise I can not say.
The fanbase will always be able to exert influence on any club.
The issue here is that in law the the 21% ownership stake buys you nothing. It in no way increases your influence, in the absense of the controlling shareholders contractually relinquishing some of their powers.
Any sign that may be happening? Overwhelming evidence to the contrary I's say. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 11:40 - Nov 24 with 1346 views | DafyddHuw |
| The Trust AGM on 11:24 - Nov 24 by TheResurrection |
It's not the last resort, it's our only resort. We can't work with them, they don't want to work with us.
All this still being involved is making us complicit and surely would jeopardise any future unfair prejudice claim.
We've been unfairly prejudiced already, they are making decisions and excluding the Trust who once had a say on Club matters. They bought the Club and ignored the existing shareholders agreement, the one Jenkins lawyer attempted to get you to waive.
Get those nasty bastards lit lawyers Dai talks about on the case, right now, before this car crash trundles on any longer. |
In a nutshell. | | | |
| The Trust AGM on 11:41 - Nov 24 with 1346 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust AGM on 11:24 - Nov 24 by TheResurrection |
It's not the last resort, it's our only resort. We can't work with them, they don't want to work with us.
All this still being involved is making us complicit and surely would jeopardise any future unfair prejudice claim.
We've been unfairly prejudiced already, they are making decisions and excluding the Trust who once had a say on Club matters. They bought the Club and ignored the existing shareholders agreement, the one Jenkins lawyer attempted to get you to waive.
Get those nasty bastards lit lawyers Dai talks about on the case, right now, before this car crash trundles on any longer. |
One thing I've learned in recent times about unfair prejudice is that using the word "surely" in any discussions is fundamentally flawed. I also understand you're wrong on the complicity angle, although if you're speaking to Dai feel free to ask him.
Anyway, last post from me as the day job gets in the way. A good discussion and lots to think about. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 12:35 - Nov 24 with 1283 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust AGM on 11:41 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
One thing I've learned in recent times about unfair prejudice is that using the word "surely" in any discussions is fundamentally flawed. I also understand you're wrong on the complicity angle, although if you're speaking to Dai feel free to ask him.
Anyway, last post from me as the day job gets in the way. A good discussion and lots to think about. |
There is no guarantee of surety in any court case and yes I have spoken to Dai.
The people are talking to you and the Trust Board Andrew, I hope you’re listening though. If you are worried the members may want to try and retain a % shareholding with no say whatsoever and to be walked all over, then you aren’t doing your job properly of making them fully aware of our awful predicament.
Also, I will say this. The Trust Chairman, Phil Sumbler and Vice Chairman, Jim White are hanging you out to dry. You have the guts to face up to scrutiny and whilst you may rub people up the wrong way with some of your responses at least you have the guts to do so.
Jim hasn’t been seen or heard since his lies were exposed on these message boards and I’m sorry, this Phil is working away nonsense is a pathetically weak attempt at hiding under his pillow case.
FFS — We need a show of strength, not trainspotting geeks quivering behind their Barbie dolls!! WTF are they hiding from? Seriously, is there more to come out re Cooze and his time as SD? | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 15:17 - Nov 24 with 1181 views | DafyddHuw |
Would the Trust website not be improved by having a section where you could ask questions?
Not only would we then not have to rely on Trust board members picking up points raised on PS (and often missing the questions), but we could send questions to the Trust which they could answer at members' meetings/AGMs. | | | |
| The Trust AGM on 15:28 - Nov 24 with 1169 views | airedale |
| The Trust AGM on 15:17 - Nov 24 by DafyddHuw |
Would the Trust website not be improved by having a section where you could ask questions?
Not only would we then not have to rely on Trust board members picking up points raised on PS (and often missing the questions), but we could send questions to the Trust which they could answer at members' meetings/AGMs. |
How many questions would they have to answer by the time of the meeting though. And how long to answer each question (with screamers butting in etc). Don't think that would work. |  | | |
| The Trust AGM on 15:55 - Nov 24 with 1137 views | 3swan |
| The Trust AGM on 15:17 - Nov 24 by DafyddHuw |
Would the Trust website not be improved by having a section where you could ask questions?
Not only would we then not have to rely on Trust board members picking up points raised on PS (and often missing the questions), but we could send questions to the Trust which they could answer at members' meetings/AGMs. |
Do you mean like this
http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/contact-us/ |  | | |
| The Trust AGM on 16:36 - Nov 24 with 1115 views | DafyddHuw |
D'oh | | | |
| The Trust AGM on 16:53 - Nov 24 with 1091 views | 3swan |
| The Trust AGM on 16:36 - Nov 24 by DafyddHuw |
D'oh |
Maybe it could be expanded to show the questions and answers, so that the same question isn't asked numerous times (depending on the answer).
Not everyone would want their name shown, but easy to get around that. | | | |
| The Trust AGM on 17:42 - Nov 24 with 1052 views | Shaky |
| The Trust AGM on 11:41 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
One thing I've learned in recent times about unfair prejudice is that using the word "surely" in any discussions is fundamentally flawed. I also understand you're wrong on the complicity angle, although if you're speaking to Dai feel free to ask him.
Anyway, last post from me as the day job gets in the way. A good discussion and lots to think about. |
Well I've just done a bit of free research on the house, and there is certainly an informal statute of limitations on unfair prejudice actions in the UK, but it appears to be significantly longer than I thought might be the case.
However, instead it is clear that the more time passes the greater the chances that a judgement to enforce compulsory buyout will take place at a new valuation, as opposed to the reported price established in July of £110 million for 100%.
Therefore in light of the on-field situation prudence dictates you've got to get your fcuking skates on boys.
IF there is no progress, and you launch proceedings early spring when relegation looks a racing certainty, you may just have spunked 15 million quid, if the court sets a value based on a relatively small Championship club.
C'mon, lets' go! | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 18:13 - Nov 24 with 1018 views | blueytheblue |
| The Trust AGM on 17:42 - Nov 24 by Shaky |
Well I've just done a bit of free research on the house, and there is certainly an informal statute of limitations on unfair prejudice actions in the UK, but it appears to be significantly longer than I thought might be the case.
However, instead it is clear that the more time passes the greater the chances that a judgement to enforce compulsory buyout will take place at a new valuation, as opposed to the reported price established in July of £110 million for 100%.
Therefore in light of the on-field situation prudence dictates you've got to get your fcuking skates on boys.
IF there is no progress, and you launch proceedings early spring when relegation looks a racing certainty, you may just have spunked 15 million quid, if the court sets a value based on a relatively small Championship club.
C'mon, lets' go! |
That of course presumes the valuation would be set at a new level ( which may or may not be the same ) and not the original level.
EDIT : IANAL but it's fairly common sense that if you win a claim for unfair prejudice, getting a sale at a lower price would still prejudice you despite winning the case? [Post edited 24 Nov 2016 19:13]
| |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 19:14 - Nov 24 with 948 views | NOTRAC |
I really cannot believe that the Trust hierarchy still believes that holding onto its shares has any validity anymore.
We have already witnessed a situation where their former friends have sold out for millions.Did those shares stop that happening. Did those shares even let them know it was happening.
If they do not and did not want to sell those shares what did they, and do they hope to achieve.They obviously will not be hoping to sell them for a better price in the future ,as they are not held to sell.The answer has always been that they believe that their influence in the club is stronger with the more shares they hold.
Stronger for what? I doubt if the Trust representative has ever achieved any change in the financial or football managing style of the club that the other shareholders did not agree with.If they couldn't achieve that with their former friends, what chance have they got with the new investors.The fact is that you need 50per cent plus to be certain of achieving any influence at all.
Twelve directors meetings have now been reduced to four.The two previous trust board representatives had other agendas, besides purely representing the Trust.
The Trusts influence in club matters is nil (as it probably always has been).The value of its shares is nil unless they take legal action.Who in their right mind would purchase the Trusts shares as things stand .We know that they can be legally watered down at any time in the future.Forget dividends, there are many ways for the new investors to get their money back without going down that root.
Surely if there is a question of cash in the bank or shares, at the moment there is only one answer.The Trust must sue.
Ask just one question.Would the Trust be stronger in the future to achieve its aims with millions in the bank or with worthless shares and £800,000 in the bank.
If the Trust could recover the true value of its shares(£22m)) there is an obvious answer as to how they could end up with more control and financial say than they have ever had before.It depends on lateral thinking.
The present situation gives the Trust the best chance they have ever had of becoming a controlling influence on the future of Swansea City football club.To achieve that however they must get the very best legal advice and sue. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 22:49 - Nov 24 with 834 views | TheResurrection |
| The Trust AGM on 19:14 - Nov 24 by NOTRAC |
I really cannot believe that the Trust hierarchy still believes that holding onto its shares has any validity anymore.
We have already witnessed a situation where their former friends have sold out for millions.Did those shares stop that happening. Did those shares even let them know it was happening.
If they do not and did not want to sell those shares what did they, and do they hope to achieve.They obviously will not be hoping to sell them for a better price in the future ,as they are not held to sell.The answer has always been that they believe that their influence in the club is stronger with the more shares they hold.
Stronger for what? I doubt if the Trust representative has ever achieved any change in the financial or football managing style of the club that the other shareholders did not agree with.If they couldn't achieve that with their former friends, what chance have they got with the new investors.The fact is that you need 50per cent plus to be certain of achieving any influence at all.
Twelve directors meetings have now been reduced to four.The two previous trust board representatives had other agendas, besides purely representing the Trust.
The Trusts influence in club matters is nil (as it probably always has been).The value of its shares is nil unless they take legal action.Who in their right mind would purchase the Trusts shares as things stand .We know that they can be legally watered down at any time in the future.Forget dividends, there are many ways for the new investors to get their money back without going down that root.
Surely if there is a question of cash in the bank or shares, at the moment there is only one answer.The Trust must sue.
Ask just one question.Would the Trust be stronger in the future to achieve its aims with millions in the bank or with worthless shares and £800,000 in the bank.
If the Trust could recover the true value of its shares(£22m)) there is an obvious answer as to how they could end up with more control and financial say than they have ever had before.It depends on lateral thinking.
The present situation gives the Trust the best chance they have ever had of becoming a controlling influence on the future of Swansea City football club.To achieve that however they must get the very best legal advice and sue. |
Great post.
There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for this stand off right now, well not unless the Trust are keeping stuff from us.
They have had all the opportunity to work with us and what do they go and do behind our back. Make Dineen a Director again? Arguably the most hated out of them all and they'd know that.
The press are picking up the pieces of this saga more and more and we'd get them on side for the pure and simple reason we've been shit on from a great height. | |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 23:39 - Nov 24 with 787 views | AngelRangelQS |
| The Trust AGM on 11:33 - Nov 24 by Uxbridge |
And in a nutshell you demonstrate the difference in terms of looking at this as an investor in a business, to a fans organisation in a football club. You seem to have no affinity, or understanding, for the latter.
The Trust has more than competent legal advice. It has also called on specialists in other legal fields where required.
HSBC doesn't have a 21% shareholder looking after the interests of its clients, making sure bank charges are kept low, interest rates are high etc. You can't compare the two companies. Football clubs are, by their very definition, affected by the views and whims of their fans more than any other type of company. Agitate the fanbase, watch performances stutter and watch your investment fall in value. You're looking at this from a purely legal perspective, and that is just one (albeit significant) factor here. As Chris has so eloquently underlined, the fans can influence events to hold the majority owners to account and a strong fans representative has more chance of getting those controls.
Funnily enough, the Trust indeed has a mandate to keep its shareholding and not sell. It's a founding principle of the Trust. The members have continually voted in favour of keeping any funds to increase the stake above all else. Not that it's something I'm advocating as an absolute, however it'll be a factor for some members when thinking about whether the Trust should sell or not. |
But that mandate is outdated - it was fine as a founding principle when we were in Division 3 and probably also in higher leagues when everything was sunshine and lollipops with the old board. In today's world things are different IMO.
The Americans have zero interest in working with the Trust. That was obvious from them being complicit in the sly way the deal was done. Why exactly are we still harbouring any hope that they'll suddenly work with the Trust?
If there's any way we can force a sale of the shares (no idea if that's one of the remedies available or not) then it just needs to be done. It strikes me that we'd be better off as a gloves off, noisy neighbour with millions in the bank than where we are at present.
Whilst I'm on the subject, why is the SD so invisible online and on social media? He should be fronting up and answering questions on Twitter and Facebook at the very least. [Post edited 24 Nov 2016 23:42]
|  | | |
| The Trust AGM on 01:27 - Nov 25 with 755 views | Loyal |
| 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? |
Thing is Major and others with a shit attitude saw themselves as above the average swans fan. Like others he hangs around with he was quick to belittle and undermine and slow to back it up.
Dai Little is a quality bloke, others of his area of residence not much so, if at all. |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| The Trust AGM on 09:22 - Nov 25 with 651 views | Shaky |
| The Trust AGM on 23:39 - Nov 24 by AngelRangelQS |
But that mandate is outdated - it was fine as a founding principle when we were in Division 3 and probably also in higher leagues when everything was sunshine and lollipops with the old board. In today's world things are different IMO.
The Americans have zero interest in working with the Trust. That was obvious from them being complicit in the sly way the deal was done. Why exactly are we still harbouring any hope that they'll suddenly work with the Trust?
If there's any way we can force a sale of the shares (no idea if that's one of the remedies available or not) then it just needs to be done. It strikes me that we'd be better off as a gloves off, noisy neighbour with millions in the bank than where we are at present.
Whilst I'm on the subject, why is the SD so invisible online and on social media? He should be fronting up and answering questions on Twitter and Facebook at the very least. [Post edited 24 Nov 2016 23:42]
|
Agreed.
But while I have in this thread focused on the negatives, let's not forget the one enormous positive of selling the Trust's stake and banking an additional £22 million + change.
As I read it, the Trust's original cornerstone founding objective was to secure the presence of professional football in Swansea.
If the Trust has £23 million in relatively liquid assets, this creates an insurance policy that can guarantee that objective for generations.
Think of that as a hugely important legacy, Phil, rather than cling on to a now non-existent status from an era that has simply passed by. You have got to let go. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.