| Independent Supporters Group on 16:06 - Dec 4 with 2196 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:58 - Dec 4 by TheUnion |
Since when has any shareholders agreement meant or had any value in this club. The trust accountant Andy I think his name is told us shareholders agreements arn’t worth anything when we questioned him about Jenkins breaking the original agreement. |
The hell I did. I think you're confusing whether it's a criminal act of not. |  |
|  |
| Independent Supporters Group on 16:13 - Dec 4 with 2168 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:43 - Dec 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Indeed. But not fundamental issues. Saying the Trust could never again criticise the majority owners or the club itself is fairly fundamental given the nature of the business.
We were also explicitly told that nothing about the deal precluded future legal action, for example, if the minority was prejudiced by the owners paying themselves management fees that were excessive to siphon money away. Taking legal action against them would be a pretty fundamental criticism of their behaviour. |
You both seem to be agreeing, as far as I can tell, and I'll agree too.
The offer presented to the members had the catch of it settling any past legal actions. This was in the documents sent to the members, so Shaky doesn't need to rely on me saying it on here, although I did.
As Lisa says, it was always explicit that it related to past legal actions only. Not future. To me, that'd be a fundamental change in the terms, and clearly not in the Trust's interests to agree to such a thing. It's certainly not something I could ever stomach.
Shaky's right, or at least I agree, in what he says in the above. Wrinkles are to be expected when you go from a term sheet to an SPA. It's when they go beyond that or they can't be resolved that it becomes a bigger issue. Maybe their presence in itself is enough for some, but I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect nothing to come up. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 17:11 - Dec 4 with 2081 views | TheUnion |
| Independent Supporters Group on 16:06 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
The hell I did. I think you're confusing whether it's a criminal act of not. |
I said to you ‘what your saying is shareholders agreements are worthless then’ You replied ‘basically yes’ [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 17:48]
|  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 17:25 - Dec 4 with 2042 views | Oldjack |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:25 - Dec 4 by londonlisa2001 |
The deal was supposed to be as a result of months of negotiations let's not forget, not the start.
We were told that quite explicitly. |
I'll wager the Yanks will drag out this socalled deal until the time is right for them to pull out .eg. the day we get relegated |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 17:39 - Dec 4 with 2007 views | Nookiejack |
| Independent Supporters Group on 15:43 - Dec 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Indeed. But not fundamental issues. Saying the Trust could never again criticise the majority owners or the club itself is fairly fundamental given the nature of the business.
We were also explicitly told that nothing about the deal precluded future legal action, for example, if the minority was prejudiced by the owners paying themselves management fees that were excessive to siphon money away. Taking legal action against them would be a pretty fundamental criticism of their behaviour. |
|  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 17:45 - Dec 4 with 1994 views | Mart3 |
ffs [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 17:46]
| | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 17:47 - Dec 4 with 1988 views | E20Jack |
I said it all along. The goal for these board members seems to be to get the £5m, they have seemingly forgotten their purpose.
What on earth is £5m pre tax going to do? The deal is awful anyway but made even worse by the fact we look very short price to be relegated this year meaning no more extra purchasing at the required price.
This Trust board are chucking away our shares essentially. For what? |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 18:27 - Dec 4 with 1916 views | Nookiejack |
One of the main priorities is to develop a defence to ensuring money does not go offshore to Delaware through excessive management fees. Especially given we are bottom of the PL and the Yanks will want to recoup their investment.
Developing a defence against this seems much more important than potential distraction of setting up an Independent Supporters Group which will then be at conflict with the Trust - whilst the money is siphoned offshore. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Independent Supporters Group on 18:33 - Dec 4 with 1899 views | donkonky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 17:47 - Dec 4 by E20Jack |
I said it all along. The goal for these board members seems to be to get the £5m, they have seemingly forgotten their purpose.
What on earth is £5m pre tax going to do? The deal is awful anyway but made even worse by the fact we look very short price to be relegated this year meaning no more extra purchasing at the required price.
This Trust board are chucking away our shares essentially. For what? |
Exactly!! Trust board do the right thing and put this deal on ice until further dialogue with the members is carried out. I know the motion was voted through, however this deal is total farce. I’m sure if an AGM was called today the vote would be overturned, especially with the recent spate of board resignations. Genuine plea to the Trust board- Do the right thing before you regret it. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 18:45 - Dec 4 with 1854 views | E20Jack |
| Independent Supporters Group on 18:33 - Dec 4 by donkonky |
Exactly!! Trust board do the right thing and put this deal on ice until further dialogue with the members is carried out. I know the motion was voted through, however this deal is total farce. I’m sure if an AGM was called today the vote would be overturned, especially with the recent spate of board resignations. Genuine plea to the Trust board- Do the right thing before you regret it. |
Even if every detail remained the same and the Americans had acted impeccably - the length of time it has taken means that the members decision may have changed as a result of the ever moving picture of our position in the PL.
Many accepted it as they thought we would be a regular fixture in the PL and thus get the future payments from future share sales too - well that looks increasingly like it wont apply anymore meaning the deal is infinitely worse than it was originally - which takes some doing.
Forget Jenkins.
Forget Clement.
Forget the team.
Priority number 1 should be reversing this vote and ensuring we begin legal proceedings while we remain a PL club. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 18:47 - Dec 4 with 1848 views | Smellyplumz |
I wouldn't trust the trust as far as I could throw them. |  |
|
""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 |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 19:20 - Dec 4 with 1777 views | homeiswheretrundleis |
***IS THERE ANYONE WHO CAN ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WHICH i POSTED EARLIER TO PHIL(WHO MAY NOT HAVE BE ABLE TO ANSWER ME UP TO THE PRESENT TIME)***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Phil
1. Please could you explain why an EMERGENCY GENERAL MEETING can't be called to oust the present board and vote in a NEW board
2. If an EGM can be called how many votes (of the current trust members) would be needed to oust the present board
3. If an EGM can be called could supporters re join/join to have a vote at that EGM or would the new members have to wait a certain amount of time before they could vote
Thanks | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 19:43 - Dec 4 with 1727 views | BillyChong |
| Independent Supporters Group on 12:45 - Dec 4 by londonlisa2001 |
Couple of points here' that arise out of Matt's comments.
Firstly there is a sense of the Trust being concerned that if they rock the boat, the deal will go away.
It should be the other way round! The Americans should be bloody terrified that the deal will go away if THEY do anything. Not the reverse for Gods sake! What's the Trust board thinking of? That gaining £5m is somehow the goal? Why? What on earth do they've think they can do with it? It's utter nonsense.
And secondly, if they get the deal, the Trust then can't take legal action and can't criticise the ownership? What the hell?
What's the point of the Trust in that case? Have these people forgotten what the Trust is supposed to do? They can't negotiate away the very point of the Trust - they don't have ANY remit to do that.
What the hell are they interviewing people for? Go to the morgue and pick up a few bodies to plonk in a corner if the plan is to behave like this.
This gets worse and worse as news drips out.
Who is driving this at the Trust? What do they want? The odd pat on the head from the Americans?
This is increasingly pathetic. |
This is what baffles me and I am certain someone on the board has been influenced to go all out to make a deal happen ASAP | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 19:55 - Dec 4 with 1691 views | thornabyswan |
| Independent Supporters Group on 19:20 - Dec 4 by homeiswheretrundleis |
***IS THERE ANYONE WHO CAN ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WHICH i POSTED EARLIER TO PHIL(WHO MAY NOT HAVE BE ABLE TO ANSWER ME UP TO THE PRESENT TIME)***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Phil
1. Please could you explain why an EMERGENCY GENERAL MEETING can't be called to oust the present board and vote in a NEW board
2. If an EGM can be called how many votes (of the current trust members) would be needed to oust the present board
3. If an EGM can be called could supporters re join/join to have a vote at that EGM or would the new members have to wait a certain amount of time before they could vote
Thanks |
If this was to happen could the deal with the owners then be stopped or has it gone to far | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 19:59 - Dec 4 with 1667 views | airedale |
| Independent Supporters Group on 11:02 - Dec 4 by wobbly |
indpendent Supporters Group? Nah.
I'm joining the Group of Independent Supporters. |
I’m with the Group of Independant Tomorrows Supporters myself. |  | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:02 - Dec 4 with 1649 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 17:11 - Dec 4 by TheUnion |
I said to you ‘what your saying is shareholders agreements are worthless then’ You replied ‘basically yes’ [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 17:48]
|
You're completely ignoring the context of that conversation, which related to the ability of the Trust to stop the original sale. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:05 - Dec 4 with 1638 views | donkonky |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:02 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
You're completely ignoring the context of that conversation, which related to the ability of the Trust to stop the original sale. |
Can This deal be halted Ux? What would it take for this to happen? | | | |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:14 - Dec 4 with 1589 views | thornabyswan |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:02 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
You're completely ignoring the context of that conversation, which related to the ability of the Trust to stop the original sale. |
I have always found your posts trust related or otherwise to be very informative same applies to Phil for his tireless effort.
But do you agree now that the Trust needs fresh impetus.
That E.mail that Res put on this forum regarding his application showed how out of touch with the fan base some are.
Also do you now regret that the Trust recommended the deal to not go to court
If you can't answer the last point no problem.
But in my opinion as soon as the owners tried to regnotiate the deal the Trust should have recommended that the deal be rejected by its members. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:28 - Dec 4 with 1541 views | E20Jack |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:14 - Dec 4 by thornabyswan |
I have always found your posts trust related or otherwise to be very informative same applies to Phil for his tireless effort.
But do you agree now that the Trust needs fresh impetus.
That E.mail that Res put on this forum regarding his application showed how out of touch with the fan base some are.
Also do you now regret that the Trust recommended the deal to not go to court
If you can't answer the last point no problem.
But in my opinion as soon as the owners tried to regnotiate the deal the Trust should have recommended that the deal be rejected by its members. |
The deal was awful anyway, long before they tried to re-negotiate.
If they had shown they had the clubs interest at heart and were trustworthy individuals from the start, then although I would disagree that the deal should be taken, I could see the thinking of those that wanted to build a working relationship.
However they admitted keeping the Trust in the dark on the instructions of the former board and shown since (Dineen appointment, Bradley appointment, ticketing policies) that they cannot be trusted and certainly do not have the clubs well being at heart.
Pushing for the deal KNOWING what the Americans were like before hand is nigh on criminal in my eyes. Absolutely every effort should be put into correcting this. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:40 - Dec 4 with 1503 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:14 - Dec 4 by thornabyswan |
I have always found your posts trust related or otherwise to be very informative same applies to Phil for his tireless effort.
But do you agree now that the Trust needs fresh impetus.
That E.mail that Res put on this forum regarding his application showed how out of touch with the fan base some are.
Also do you now regret that the Trust recommended the deal to not go to court
If you can't answer the last point no problem.
But in my opinion as soon as the owners tried to regnotiate the deal the Trust should have recommended that the deal be rejected by its members. |
Cheers. So, in order:
Do I think it needs fresh impetus? Absolutely. I've said as much.
Would I have sent that email to Res? Not in that wording, no, and certainly not at that time. Although feelings are high for a number of reasons, and people don't like being accused of stuff. I'm not excusing anything though, really I'm not.
Do I regret the recommendation? Not really, I think it was logical based on the circumstances at the time. That's all any of us could have done. Despite some rewriting of history on here, particularly from failed insurance salesmen, I always said it was a choice of least worst. I'm far from convinced the members would have voted for legal action though, if you attended the forums you would have seen how little appetite there was for that. The do nothing option was a bigger threat outside these pages, whether anyone thinks that a viable course of action or not. The biggest battle out there was convincing anyone to lose any part of the stake.
Should the deal have been stopped the moment there was any difference in the documentation to what was originally agreed. Now, there's a question, and I think the answer often depends on your viewpoint on why there's a difference or whether you think there was always going to be some things crop up as you go through the detail. Whether I like it or not, I find it difficult to argue against the line that, if the terms don't change from what the members voted on, then the board has a mandate to proceed with the deal. If they change, even slightly, it's a no-brainer. If they don't, well then we're into subjectives.
I understand your view, and mine isn't so different albeit for maybe different reasons. I don't think another vote would go a different way as it goes, the membership are generally risk averse as is the board in the main. PS isn't representative, we saw that clearly in the summer. Tensions are much higher now though. But nothing is signed yet. | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:48 - Dec 4 with 1465 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:05 - Dec 4 by donkonky |
Can This deal be halted Ux? What would it take for this to happen? |
Yes. Will it? Not unless the board and the members change their minds, or the deal is different to that previously presented. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:48]
| |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:51 - Dec 4 with 1445 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:48 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
Yes. Will it? Not unless the board and the members change their minds, or the deal is different to that previously presented. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:48]
|
But the members won’t get a chance to change their minds until the board decides that its mind has changed.
Shades of Brexit here. Pretty much everyone realises it’s a stupid idea (whether they want to admit it or not) but no one wants to say it so we’ll muddle on through to the inevitable disastrous conclusion regardless. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:55]
|  |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:52 - Dec 4 with 1440 views | E20Jack |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:48 - Dec 4 by Uxbridge |
Yes. Will it? Not unless the board and the members change their minds, or the deal is different to that previously presented. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:48]
|
Can the members force a re-vote? Or force the current board to resign if voted on? | |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:54 - Dec 4 with 1425 views | E20Jack |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:51 - Dec 4 by exiledclaseboy |
But the members won’t get a chance to change their minds until the board decides that its mind has changed.
Shades of Brexit here. Pretty much everyone realises it’s a stupid idea (whether they want to admit it or not) but no one wants to say it so we’ll muddle on through to the inevitable disastrous conclusion regardless. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:55]
|
spot on.
it is a complete farce. I think the Trust board know they have made a massive error too. some have resigned as they no longer want to be associated with it, some will plough through regardless with some sick sense of pride that they concluded a multi million pound deal - whether it brings about the undoing of 15 years of work and the beginning of the end of the club seems a mere irrelevance.
But hey, we will have nearly 5 million quid that we will probably end up giving away to charity as its no good to us. Yey for us. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:56]
| |
| |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:56 - Dec 4 with 1415 views | Uxbridge |
| Independent Supporters Group on 20:51 - Dec 4 by exiledclaseboy |
But the members won’t get a chance to change their minds until the board decides that its mind has changed.
Shades of Brexit here. Pretty much everyone realises it’s a stupid idea (whether they want to admit it or not) but no one wants to say it so we’ll muddle on through to the inevitable disastrous conclusion regardless. [Post edited 4 Dec 2017 20:55]
|
You seem to think there's a good consequence of any action here, or there ever was, or that the thinking of people have changed. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.