 | Forum
Reply | it,s him
at 18:26 30 Dec 2016
I hope you're right and the new owners have seen through Jenkins. I can't believe anyone advising Clement would allow him to take HJ seriously. |
| Forum
Reply | it,s him
at 18:10 30 Dec 2016
That's just the point, he's been a good no 2 to ancelotti one of the most successful managers at 4 of the biggest clubs in Europe, he's now no 2 to Huw Jenkins, if he leaves Bayern for this role he wants his head read. |
| Forum
Reply | it,s him
at 16:07 30 Dec 2016
Agree 100%
Getting back up isn't the b all either, sorting out the mess that HJ has created has to be the first priority and unloading a lot of the deadwood lurking around the changing room.
January will be interesting, could say once and for all if the plan is for a soft landing in the championship. Unload some of the high earners and bring in some on short term low wage contracts who just want premiership game time. Include Rowett in that scenario, he's unemployed with fxxx all to lose.
Curt's body language says he has accepted we're down. |
| Forum
Reply | The Harry Redknapp Thread
at 22:12 28 Dec 2016
Relegation shouldn't be viewed as an option, getting back up will take years if ever, the teams in the top half of the championship are building for premiership football, Swansea would be in disarray, be forced into massive restructuring and wallow in the lower half of the table for a few seasons at best.
Put everything they've got to stay up, get the guy best fitted to that job and get on with it.
The right guy in charge next week and Swansea survive. |
| Forum
Reply | De Boer Turns Down Swans Approach?
at 22:04 28 Dec 2016
Point is that neither of them got the players on board, players have to believe in you.
You don't want someone who's been sacked for failure, or someone looking for a job, you want someone with credibility and a cv that supports that.
Giggs doesn't do it for me, nor does Rowett. If Redknap wants it let him have it and be eternally grateful |
| Forum
Reply | De Boer Turns Down Swans Approach?
at 21:30 28 Dec 2016
His record at Inter was 4 wins from 11 matches, players complained of his inability to communicate, he tried to change too much too soon and lost the changing room, a player revolt followed and he was sacked after 85 days, sounds remarkably like BB |
| Forum
Reply | Gylfi Staying
at 21:08 28 Dec 2016
Seriously? You've got to be kidding, sorry mate you are way off the mark on this one |
| Forum
Reply | When Ryan Giggs didn't get the job in Oct
at 19:47 28 Dec 2016
Jenkins won't be appointing new manager, "the club" will, he no longer runs the club his dictatorship is over, credibility amongst new owners is at ground zero, exposed for what he and his cronies are.
New owners are starting to repair the damage done, respect for supporters and trust is being re-established, errors of old boards ways acknowledged.
New manager will be someone with credibility and ambition, Coleman has both and would appreciate having Curtis around. |
| Forum
Reply | Time up Huw?
at 18:23 28 Dec 2016
Can't agree with the view that the "yanks" don't know anything about running a football club or that they need Jenkins. Levien is well connected in football circles, he is adviser to the majority shareholder of Inter Milan who also happens to be a co-owner of DC United which is co-owned by Levien. The new owners are no mugs, they know how to run a business and how to make a success of it. Let's see if the Inter Milan connection comes into play in January.
The "yanks" have both got good track records, they have it seems got into bed with some less capable and questionable characters at SCFC, that's the only reason the old board are still here, once the ground is clear their usefulness will disappear, as will they, amateurs amongst professionals.
My money is on the "yanks" |
| Forum
Reply | Should The Trust be seeking legal counsel from the fans?
at 18:27 21 Dec 2016
Having not had sight of the original Constitution or A&A it's difficult to assess the damage that the Trust have suffered. It is said that the A&A granted certain rights to the Trust and these rights were protected. Again, unable to quote but led to believe the Trust were able to influence decision making at the club and had some form of veto.
I agree that the issue is complicated and it will take a very good legal brain to determine the case and more importantly how that case is handled.
I still firmly believe the Trusts position will be wholly dependent on the quality of the advice they receive. Company Law is extremely complex and courts are very reluctant to get involved. The catch all is the company, and the best interests of the company. This is where it can prove difficult to succeed in determining whether any decisions or actions were detrimental to the company. As you have pointed out the Trust have in essence everything they had before, it's for the Trust to demonstrate what damage they have incurred or, whether a Director or Directors have failed their Fiduciary duties. |
| Forum
Reply | Should The Trust be seeking legal counsel from the fans?
at 23:10 20 Dec 2016
It's difficult to understand from a distance what the Trust are looking for. On the little information in the public domain, it appears that the Trust as a significant shareholder has been let down by the Chairman. Under UK law on corporate governance the Chairman has distinct responsibilities to all shareholders and in particular the rights of and obligations to. The Trust believe they have not been kept informed, he's banged to rights on that one. Their rights and the obligations of others to them have been dismissed out of hand, Chairman appears to have chosen to deal with this by changing A&A.
There are suggestions on this platform that some insider dealing has also gone on, corporate governance law in the UK provides for this and places distinct responsibility on shareholders to declare their interests on any work/contract of £100k or more or 5% of contract value of £5k or more. This would have to have board approval and be minuted. This is basic stuff and surely with the business experience of those involved at the club be a given. The Trust representative on the board would/should have knowledge of this.
Part of the learning here is the Trust should ensure that their board rep/s are properly trained and informed on responsibility of directors and the relationship with other board members. Part of the role is to challenge, protect interests of shareholders and the health of the business.
On the face of it, the rules of corporate governance appear to have been abandoned and seen as a mere obstruction to the pursuit of the best interests of a select few. There are lots of businesses in the UK run like this, but a business with such a high public profile is committing suicide by acting in this manner. I truly understand why so many are so reluctant to criticise or rally for action, but in light of what's gone on and the long term consequences for the whole club all of the supporters should get behind the Trust and the Trust have to the right thing by the supporters.
I hope and pray that the Trust get the right advice from the right people and be brave. £10K would be money well spent for the right advice. |
| Forum
Reply | Should The Trust be seeking legal counsel from the fans?
at 20:58 20 Dec 2016
Speaking from experience as someone running a sports club rolled over by a FTSE100 housebuilder. We were fortunate to have amongst our wider support some well connected legal eagles. They had our case looked at by the leading counsel in this field. The fact he agreed to take the case was given to us as a sign that he was extremely confident that we had a strong case and would be suitably compensated. It didn't go to court and we received ample compensation for our trouble, the opposition were also handed a truly massive legal bill.
The trust need to be told how strong their case is and what recourse will be given if the issue is found in their favour. The trust have to have to hand what they want from this.
The initial meeting with the QC that we met and some preliminary works cost our club £10k. We never paid this as the pricks we were dealing with rolled over after the 1st contact was made by our legal team.
In the legal world you get what you pay for, a decent QC won't take it on if they are not sure of success, the decent one's take pride in their professionalism and success rate.
From a lay mans point of view the Trust have been wronged, but what remedies are available?
Legal counsel has to be the answer, get a good one, it will be money well spent and everyone will sleep easier for having done so. |
| Forum
Reply | Regrets
at 12:08 18 Dec 2016
They probably regret the manner in which they chose to conduct the sale. Their credibility with the new owners must be rock bottom. I think it's worth noting that it's the new owners who have engaged with the Trust and apologised on several occasions. i believe they are too smart for the sellers and are managing the position accordingly. There's a healthy distance between Kaplan, Levien and the sellers. January is as much a test for the team as it is for the relationships between owners and sellers. |
| Forum
Reply | Reality check - Outside perspective
at 10:16 18 Dec 2016
Hi, I can see you are trying to be objective and like most are praying that BB does turn it round, like you I believe the January transfer window will be his Last Stand. Tell me though, in your opinion, do we have in Kaplan and Levien a Hicks and Gillett or JW Henry?
JW appears to have given Liverpool a lift, top4, one of the best managers in Europe and a fantastic squad. Klopp's prime qualities include the appetite he has for engaging with the fans, BB is on the back foot here and the void between him and the fans is going to take some filling. Kaplan and Levien appear to have exceptional cv's and have enjoyed huge business success. Surely if they have that much faith in BB they would do more to protect him and not hang him out to dry?
I also agree with you on defenders, the WBA game was a joke, played really well 1st half and completely undone by the same player with the same ball into the box, no one near him, I honestly believe ash would have dealt with that, he wouldn't have got a second header let alone 3rd.
For every supporter at the club I want the January window to deliver for BB and the team to survive another season. I don't care what nationality the coach is as long as he does the business. Reality is that anyone in the bottom half, from 10th down could be in the relegation mix. |
| Forum
Reply | Leigh Dineen will not return to the board of directors
at 14:08 16 Dec 2016
Agree entirely, the Trust should have been given the opportunity to at least consider an offer for their shares, the Trusts objective of preserving professional football in swansea might have been better served by having the cash in the bank or invested with a view to being in a position to pick up the pieces if this thing ends in disaster, god forbid.
I also believe the Trust should persue the shareholders for damages or some form of recourse.
There is also the issue of the alternative bidder from China, it appears the Trust knew little if anything about this and were not afforded the opportunity to consider the merits of both approaches. Whether or not they could have influenced the decision is irrelevant, they are shareholders and should have been kept fully informed of the approach from the chinese.
I feel for the Trust, they simply want the best for the club and its supporters but have been forced into spending huge amount s of their time battling against some pure evil here. Anyone who has volunteered their time to such a good cause will know how painful it can be when you come up against some hardened professionals hell bent on undermining everything you have worked for.
The Trust must stand back and take a breath, regroup and refocus on where they are and where they want to go from here. It will help when it comes to taking about the recourse they seek for the damage done. |
| Forum
Reply | Peter Hain
at 19:34 13 Dec 2016
He is apparently a great fan of Bob Dylan - favourite track Dignity😜 |
| Forum
Reply | Greedy Board of Directors
at 23:14 12 Dec 2016
I agree with your view on the position the trust created in taking the stance they did, it's at that point they should have taken advice on how to best protect their interests, it might well have been better that they insisted their shareholding be sold at the same £/share value as that of the other shareholders. Worst case scenario they would have had £20million in the war chest.The shareholding they have could be worthless if the new owners get it wrong or pull another stunt to dilute the trusts shareholding to the point where it is worthless eg. Issue more shares to raise capital to fund purchase of stadium or buy players.
The Chairman might have some defence in that the Trust would not listen to reason and slammed the door on any discussion on share sale.
The issue of the A&A, whilst disappointing is a bit of a red herring as the majority of shareholders wanted them changed, Trust were in the minority. Not defending the way it was done but trying to bring some sense of reason and reality to the situation.
Sometimes you have to take it on the chin and move on. Trust still has a role to play for supporters and long term prospects for football in Swansea. They need to step back, regroup and take a fresh look at how they do what they do and crack on. Move into a positive mindset and think of the next generation of supporters. |
| Forum
Reply | Peter Hain
at 17:40 12 Dec 2016
Thats not the electorate, thats the labour party for you, need a safe seat for one of the boys - Neath will do!! As they did recently with Andrew Kinnock the Hon Member for Aberavon, member of the Kinnock dynasty, - (please don't tell them your kids go to a public school, the plebs won't like that - we'll break it to them after the election and say sorry he misread the question)!!!!
Fair play he used his massive influence to save the steel industry in Wales!! Well done taf you can go back to London now, job done |
| Forum
Reply | Greedy Board of Directors
at 16:50 12 Dec 2016
Hi, sorry, I didn't mean to come across as bitter, its just a shame to see someone held in such high esteem by the supporters - ("In Huw We Trust " ).- let them down so badly. With his knowledge of the people on the trust he could have worked harder to get them on board ? He could have explained the demands of the new owners in terms of wanting their investment secured and the threat the Trusts then position represented to the deal. It wasn't the responsibility of the Trust to badger the Chairman for information, it was the responsibility of the Chairman to badger the Trust and to get them on board.
God forbid that he should be proved to have done something so underhand (AofA)that he upsets both the supporters and the new owners, then he will be a lonely person!!
Though truth be known, the new owners due diligence will have thrown that issue up along with the threat the Trust posed. The chairman will have been tasked with sorting that out, as he did. You don't invest £60million on a whim, you make certain its safe. |
| Forum
Reply | Greedy Board of Directors
at 21:43 11 Dec 2016
If I were the chairman representing the interests of the shareholders, I would have ensured all shareholders were treated equally and shared all information on possible sale of some or all shares to a new party with all of the shareholders. I cannot see how as chairman I could behave in any other way. I might have had to impress on some shareholders how important the views of other shareholders were and perhaps work extra hard to ensure that there was consensus on the way forward for all concerned, what would have been important to me given my position of chairman was my personal integrity, having just had an honour bestowed upon me by the Queen I would want to show the utmost respect for the people that recommended me for that honour and be seen to be wholly in compliance with character and conduct of someone fortunate enough to have been recognised for my contribution to football in the community, always mindful of the support I had received over many years from both shareholders and supporters alike. I would not be entirely confident that I could have satisfied the needs and wishes of all shareholders but accept that the rights of some might not be overridden by the needs of others. That is how a chairman should conduct himself. Pat on the back for maximising shareholder value, shame the benefits were not enjoyed by all interested parties. |
| | TheCooler
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 8 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 8 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.