| Today's Trust E-mail. 10:05 - Oct 8 with 18108 views | Pegojack |
It must be crystal clear to everyone by now that the current and previous owners are treating the Trust and by implication the fanbase with complete contempt.
Get them into court ASAP. [Post edited 8 Oct 2018 10:07]
|  | | |  |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:08 - Oct 8 with 2097 views | Wingstandwood |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 13:13 - Oct 8 by AguycalledJack |
Anybody who:
1. takes as long as they have disclosing documentation
2. request a meeting behind closed doors with no lawyers present
3. want confidentiality agreements signed by fellow directors
4. fail to make crucial financial information available to fellow directors
have clearly got something to hide. Lets hope the disclosure documentation is not doctored like the minutes of the non existent meeting.
The Trust are banging their heads against a brick wall. Get on with it and issue proceedings. [Post edited 8 Oct 2018 13:14]
|
Aye, rather damning 1-4! Sort of really drives home what utter scum SCST has had to deal with and the utter contempt/disrespect Yanks, Jenkins and sell-outs have for the trust, its members and all SCFC supporters.
There again the way John Van Zweden was allowed to blatantly provoke/goad SCFC supporters regarding his and Martin Morgans travel-club greed initiative says it all really. A case of insane and utterly staggering unprofessional PR-own-goal-lunacy. Any self respecting club/board other than SCFC would never have allowed that in a million years.
Nice to know there seems to be a supreme-mix of Trust officials with the dynamism, intelligence, background, streetwise savvy and ability to take the fight forward if needs be. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:11 - Oct 8 with 2091 views | chad |
In fairness Ux you were 4 square behind the deal on here. However that is unimportant we need to move forward.
Something else I brought up at the last vote, with so much at stake for the sellouts / new owners, was the potential for friends / family / ghost voters buying votes at £5 / £10 a throw. I understand there was a large increase in membership prior to the consultation.
We should bear in mind we are voting in relation to the best way to protect the long term future of professional football in SWANSEA.
Deciding what to do in a situation where we are effectively powerless and have the potential to bank over £20 million to protect the club in the future is a really really important decision. We really need to try to ensure it is real people / actual supporters of the club who vote and hopefully those to whom the long term future of professional football in Swansea is important (regardless of how they decide to vote) given that is the primary objective of the Trust. |  | | |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:22 - Oct 8 with 2062 views | LeonWasGod |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 17:08 - Oct 8 by Glyn1 |
"Offering something serious" would be to tell them that we'll see them in court.
I was one of the majority Trust members who voted for negotiation rather than court action, and I still think that was the right thing to do at the time, but the owners have basically refused any meaningful dialogue, so it's time for legal action to punish them in their pocket. |
That’s where I am on this. Not that I’ll be voting again; I lost the will to rejoin after it was as clear as mud that the yanks are taking the p1ss and the Trust don’t seem to mind. And still we hear of more delays, more acceptance of vague promises from the yanks for things that everyone knows won’t happen. They’re playing with the Trust. |  | | |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:24 - Oct 8 with 2059 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 16:33 - Oct 8 by _ |
Ask for £10m for half the shares and sign the necessary paperwork to say no more legal action will be threatened.
Build a clubhouse, a shrine to SCFC and a legacy to the last 20 years, invest the rest across the asset classes and be ready in waiting for a time it maybe needed again.
Time to move on. Offer them something serious instead of bland invitations to mediate around a peace pipe. |
To negotiate with them on the terms would mean they come to the table.
I'm sure such an offer as you outline would be very appealing to many members. But frankly without dialogue, it can't happen. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:31 - Oct 8 with 2039 views | chad |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:24 - Oct 8 by Uxbridge |
To negotiate with them on the terms would mean they come to the table.
I'm sure such an offer as you outline would be very appealing to many members. But frankly without dialogue, it can't happen. |
To give up over £10 million to remain in a toxic powerless relationship with underhand liers who treat us with total contempt does not seem good value to me.
Other opinions may be available | | | |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:35 - Oct 8 with 2036 views | Vetchfielder |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:24 - Oct 8 by Uxbridge |
To negotiate with them on the terms would mean they come to the table.
I'm sure such an offer as you outline would be very appealing to many members. But frankly without dialogue, it can't happen. |
Hi Ux,
So is the Trust currently , right now, working on the voting papers on the basis of a binary choice between staying as we are or going for legal action ? |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:39 - Oct 8 with 2024 views | Smellyplumz |
You mugs should of voted for legal action the first time like I did. |  |
|
""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 |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:42 - Oct 8 with 2012 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:35 - Oct 8 by Vetchfielder |
Hi Ux,
So is the Trust currently , right now, working on the voting papers on the basis of a binary choice between staying as we are or going for legal action ? |
As it stands, that can be the only question. So yes. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:45 - Oct 8 with 1997 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:31 - Oct 8 by chad |
To give up over £10 million to remain in a toxic powerless relationship with underhand liers who treat us with total contempt does not seem good value to me.
Other opinions may be available |
Indeed they are. Pays your money, makes your choice.
Things aren't remotely as binary as you'd like to present them as though, never were.
Ah I'm not doing that argument again, not now anyway. That's for another day. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:49 - Oct 8 with 1988 views | Wingstandwood |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:39 - Oct 8 by Smellyplumz |
You mugs should of voted for legal action the first time like I did. |
Aye me also! The "building an effective working relationship and rebuilding of bridges" stance was a complete and utter joke when JVZ was given carte blanche to bait, goad and insult supporters. Oh and bundles of matchday tickets for his/Morgans joint greed initiative!
That was (common sense and reality speaks!) cast iron 'proof-of-the-pudding' undeniable fact that there was zero remorse, regret and zero concern for future board-supporter/Trust relations. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:20 - Oct 8 with 1918 views | Vetchfielder |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:42 - Oct 8 by Uxbridge |
As it stands, that can be the only question. So yes. |
Great, thanks Ux, exactly what needs to happen IMHO and quickly | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:20 - Oct 8 with 1905 views | _ |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 17:08 - Oct 8 by Glyn1 |
"Offering something serious" would be to tell them that we'll see them in court.
I was one of the majority Trust members who voted for negotiation rather than court action, and I still think that was the right thing to do at the time, but the owners have basically refused any meaningful dialogue, so it's time for legal action to punish them in their pocket. |
Or to wipe out the 750k the Trust has left |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:22 - Oct 8 with 1905 views | _ |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:05 - Oct 8 by Shaky |
Invest "across the asset classes"?
A little property portfolio, some gold bullion, etc?
Fatuous moron. |
After they've given you your commission of course.
That's why you're hanging around, isn't it?
Fraudulent leech | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:22 - Oct 8 with 1910 views | Shaky |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:49 - Oct 8 by Wingstandwood |
Aye me also! The "building an effective working relationship and rebuilding of bridges" stance was a complete and utter joke when JVZ was given carte blanche to bait, goad and insult supporters. Oh and bundles of matchday tickets for his/Morgans joint greed initiative!
That was (common sense and reality speaks!) cast iron 'proof-of-the-pudding' undeniable fact that there was zero remorse, regret and zero concern for future board-supporter/Trust relations. |
The key problem was the attempt to build bridges was based on nothing other than good faith. On the Trust's side only as it turned out.
A collaborative relationship based on clearly defined rights and obligations set out in contractual terms, would be a different kettle of fish. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:26 - Oct 8 with 1894 views | _ |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:31 - Oct 8 by chad |
To give up over £10 million to remain in a toxic powerless relationship with underhand liers who treat us with total contempt does not seem good value to me.
Other opinions may be available |
You can't force them to pay another 20m.
For one, they simply may not have it. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:28 - Oct 8 with 1892 views | _ |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 18:49 - Oct 8 by Wingstandwood |
Aye me also! The "building an effective working relationship and rebuilding of bridges" stance was a complete and utter joke when JVZ was given carte blanche to bait, goad and insult supporters. Oh and bundles of matchday tickets for his/Morgans joint greed initiative!
That was (common sense and reality speaks!) cast iron 'proof-of-the-pudding' undeniable fact that there was zero remorse, regret and zero concern for future board-supporter/Trust relations. |
I saw on Twitter one of the Dutch jacks saying they were coming over for Ipswich.
Give me those guys over some of the idiots we've got part time supporting us any day of the week. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 20:09 - Oct 8 with 1822 views | SkettyJack |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:28 - Oct 8 by _ |
I saw on Twitter one of the Dutch jacks saying they were coming over for Ipswich.
Give me those guys over some of the idiots we've got part time supporting us any day of the week. |
According to Twitter John Clog is in the away end at Villa Park,
As long as he's irrelevant the better. Just ignore the pillock
The time is now to push the nuclear button. The yanks don't want to talk, just bloody get on with it. Take the money and use it for a rainy day fund |  | | |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 20:20 - Oct 8 with 1803 views | majorraglan |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 19:26 - Oct 8 by _ |
You can't force them to pay another 20m.
For one, they simply may not have it. |
If the Trust won their case, could the Court award the Trust the majority shareholders/sellers shares n SCFC lieu of non payment? The sellers have other businesses investments which High Court Sherrifs can go after. | | | |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 20:34 - Oct 8 with 1776 views | ItchySphincter |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 15:58 - Oct 8 by Uxbridge |
You are a liar Pikey. A blatant liar. As anyone who has read your other threads can have no doubt. |
He's not lying about you banging the drum for no legal action the first time around. It was in your election promise. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:06 - Oct 8 with 1713 views | Uxbridge |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 20:34 - Oct 8 by ItchySphincter |
He's not lying about you banging the drum for no legal action the first time around. It was in your election promise. |
I said I'd vote for the deal. That isn't remotely the same thing.
My issue with legal action was the way certain people on here were, and continue to, stating it's a guaranteed win. There's no such thing. Anyone who thinks there is doesn't know what they're on about. You can see comments like Spratty's earlier where she still states it.
It's a different kettle of fish entirely if there's no deal on the table though. The gamble is much less, or rather the alternative isn't acceptable enough. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:23 - Oct 8 with 1673 views | AguycalledJack |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:06 - Oct 8 by Uxbridge |
I said I'd vote for the deal. That isn't remotely the same thing.
My issue with legal action was the way certain people on here were, and continue to, stating it's a guaranteed win. There's no such thing. Anyone who thinks there is doesn't know what they're on about. You can see comments like Spratty's earlier where she still states it.
It's a different kettle of fish entirely if there's no deal on the table though. The gamble is much less, or rather the alternative isn't acceptable enough. |
People have to remember that to win at trial you have to better any offer that is on the table.
As you say, no offer means that the litigation risk is alot less. | | | |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:32 - Oct 8 with 1641 views | monmouth |
Not much point in having a deal ‘on the table’ when the counterparty has form for then delaying and then walking away later. Clearly that is a tactic that they have used and might use again with some last minute offer they have no intention of honouring.
Any offer that is not legally enforceable should go nowhere near the members. Otherwise it won’t be worth the contract it’s not written on when they withdraw again in six to nine months.
Fool me once and all that. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:46 - Oct 8 with 1605 views | Shaky |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:06 - Oct 8 by Uxbridge |
I said I'd vote for the deal. That isn't remotely the same thing.
My issue with legal action was the way certain people on here were, and continue to, stating it's a guaranteed win. There's no such thing. Anyone who thinks there is doesn't know what they're on about. You can see comments like Spratty's earlier where she still states it.
It's a different kettle of fish entirely if there's no deal on the table though. The gamble is much less, or rather the alternative isn't acceptable enough. |
The way i see it in poker terms, Kaplan is bluffing and significantly overplaying his hand.
Unfortunately you lot look like you are about to fold.
What you are engaging in here today simply looks like another fishing expedition looking for a way out. Any way out, except actually following through on litigation.
Show some fcuking balls, people. | |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:56 - Oct 8 with 1577 views | Darran |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:06 - Oct 8 by Uxbridge |
I said I'd vote for the deal. That isn't remotely the same thing.
My issue with legal action was the way certain people on here were, and continue to, stating it's a guaranteed win. There's no such thing. Anyone who thinks there is doesn't know what they're on about. You can see comments like Spratty's earlier where she still states it.
It's a different kettle of fish entirely if there's no deal on the table though. The gamble is much less, or rather the alternative isn't acceptable enough. |
Andrew do yourself and the Trust a favour and stop posting on here FFS. |  |
| |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 22:18 - Oct 8 with 1537 views | Glyn1 |
| Today's Trust E-mail. on 21:56 - Oct 8 by Darran |
Andrew do yourself and the Trust a favour and stop posting on here FFS. |
On the contrary, keep posting as often as possible.
We all keep complaining that we don't get enough responses from the Trust. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
