| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? 14:47 - Aug 17 with 8066 views | Darran |
Now I know there were several people involved in the sale of the club to the Americans but apparently only one,Huw Jenkins went down the legal route of asking the Trust to rip up the Shareholders Agreement so to keep things simple I'm just going to use Huw Jenkins as the example.
Huw Jenkins verbally asks the Trust to rip up the Shareholders Agreement,then he makes it all official and his solicitor writes to the Trust asking them to rip up the Shareholders Agreement to smoothly push the sale through and the Trust refuses.
Then in the Fans Forum with the two American owners at the Liberty they state in front of everyone that Jenkins told them to keep everything quiet so the Trust wouldn't find out what was going on behind their backs.
So my question is how isn't it a criminal act when a Chairman of a multi-million pound company,any company acts like this?
What am I missing here because it's the one thing I can't get my head around? |  |
| |  |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:52 - Aug 17 with 627 views | Meraki |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:10 - Aug 17 by swancity |
Exactly. And as a result the likes of Jenkins Dineen and Morgan will no doubt be celebrating over a glass of their finest Moët Chandon. When they should now be cacking their knickers.
Isn't it rather strange that Uxbridge was writing books on this subject, insisting that there was no merit in legal action and is nowhere to be seen now that the results are in? Holidays? Do me a favour. |
I'm guessing no Trust Board members will be surfacing for awhile. |  | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 00:06 - Aug 18 with 613 views | headcleaner |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:45 - Aug 17 by Swanzay |
Well they also "ignored/discouraged" the advice of a solicitor that they paid £30k for to review the case.
Simply why? |
Simply because their knees started knocking and the thought of having to sit in meetings with the snakes and not exchange smiles was a step too far. It was 30K spent in the knowledge that it was loose change when they got what they pushed for with the members.I'd imagine some of the trust execs have had lovely messages of congratulations from Steve, Huw and Mr. Pearlman looking forward to working with you and continuing the wonderful line of communication they've opened. |  | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 00:25 - Aug 18 with 597 views | Watchman |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:38 - Aug 17 by xmastree |
Just a point of order loyal. The 2 directors who left were not sacked as far as i know and they were not shareholders so a shareholders agreement meant nothing to them. They left because they were no longer going to be directors.
It is also worth pointing out at this time that the old shareholders agreement was not signed by all meaning those that did not sign it are not bound by it.
Darren. Without any of us actually seeing the agreement it is hard to know if there was something untoward. Why ? Because the agreement might not have had drag along rights in it etc. It might have said that shares being sold should be offered to others but if thats the case then im not sure its criminal more likely civil. |
A legal agreement or contract does not need to be signed. Verbal agreements are as equally secure in law so the written agreement argument is obsolete |  |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 00:32 - Aug 18 with 590 views | Loyal |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 17:38 - Aug 17 by xmastree |
Just a point of order loyal. The 2 directors who left were not sacked as far as i know and they were not shareholders so a shareholders agreement meant nothing to them. They left because they were no longer going to be directors.
It is also worth pointing out at this time that the old shareholders agreement was not signed by all meaning those that did not sign it are not bound by it.
Darren. Without any of us actually seeing the agreement it is hard to know if there was something untoward. Why ? Because the agreement might not have had drag along rights in it etc. It might have said that shares being sold should be offered to others but if thats the case then im not sure its criminal more likely civil. |
1: I say they were sacked because a leopard never changes its spots and knowing this fcking lot and they way they treat people who don't agree with them I say it has loads to do with it.
2: The shareholders agreement meant a lot to them because they have integrity. None of us have signed it either but we still are fcking angry.
3: Of course it was untoward they kept it from the trust because they vetoed the previous attempt to sell the club. That if nothing else proves them to be cnts.
Keep it simple 👠|  |
| 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 |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 09:28 - Aug 19 with 495 views | Shaky |
Criminal law and Company law are two entirely different things.
Simple enough for you shit fer brains? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
