New investment?

[Swanjaxs]

And we appear to be priced out for Darling too. The trust also seem unaware of any additional funding (they were informed that the initial loan over a year ago was at least in the pipeline).

It's all very strange.

Russ has confirmed all money for purchases will need to be brought in via sales. I take it that means no new loan?

All money for purchases for new signings has always depended on sales since day 1 of the takeover.

 

[Thornburyswan]

Well the manager appears to be saying we are skint anyway. :lol:

Yeh, personally I think people have got overly excited over a few words the club had the CLN around 15/16 months ago & late last year they agreed to a further facility with Macquarie Bank against the final two Rodon payments due in 10/22 & 10/23. Whilst I know no more than anyone else I suspect that is it, for now.

So around £18M could have been used or available (£12/13M on the CLN & £5.5M via Macquarie) all attracting interest/fees but needed to operate the club on a day to day basis - plus some flex in the transfer markets - noting it costs more to run the club than it generates in tv/ticket/commercial/merchandising etc etc.

 

[Longlostjack]

Can’t we get a loan from the Swansea Building Society?

 

[PSumbler]

Just adding to this on the legal dispute front (completely aside from any discussion on investment)

https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Internal-Record-January-2022-WEBSITE-FINAL.pdf

The last board minutes of the Trust...

Couple of things- one legal case related and one not

Point 14 - Governance subgroup would pick up once the legal dispute has subsided. We aim to resurrect this topic
in February 2022, after the AGM has been conducted

Point 10 - TS and DD pointed out that the Trust has two representatives for the director’s box for all home and away
matches. The SD, Chairman and AD normally represent the Trust for matches; however, other TBMs are
welcome to attend if neither the SD, Chairman nor AD is able to attend a match. RT reiterated that we have
these seats, so we should take them up. Please let DD know of any preferences.

On an aside there is some staying power on that board - meeting lasted 3hours 35.

 

[Swanjaxs]

Can’t we get a loan from the Swansea Building Society?

Perhaps we can get a sub off Charlie Morgan, he's raking it in with his golden vodka by all accounts :lol:

 

[Risc]

Can’t we get a loan from the Swansea Building Society?

Perhaps we can get a sub off Charlie Morgan, he's raking it in with his golden vodka by all accounts :lol:

It has blown up big time fair play to the boy, Floyd Mayweather etc purchasing from him.

 

[Marchamjack]

Just adding to this on the legal dispute front (completely aside from any discussion on investment)

https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Internal-Record-January-2022-WEBSITE-FINAL.pdf

The last board minutes of the Trust...

Couple of things- one legal case related and one not

Point 14 - Governance subgroup would pick up once the legal dispute has subsided. We aim to resurrect this topic
in February 2022, after the AGM has been conducted

Point 10 - TS and DD pointed out that the Trust has two representatives for the director’s box for all home and away
matches. The SD, Chairman and AD normally represent the Trust for matches; however, other TBMs are
welcome to attend if neither the SD, Chairman nor AD is able to attend a match. RT reiterated that we have
these seats, so we should take them up. Please let DD know of any preferences.

On an aside there is some staying power on that board - meeting lasted 3hours 35.

“The Goverance subgroup would pick up once the legal dispute has subsided…we aim to pick this up in February 2022”

Am I reading that right or is there some other way to read it?!

The AGM may be telling us some blockbusting news at this rate

 

[PSumbler]

Just adding to this on the legal dispute front (completely aside from any discussion on investment)

https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Internal-Record-January-2022-WEBSITE-FINAL.pdf

The last board minutes of the Trust...

Couple of things- one legal case related and one not

Point 14 - Governance subgroup would pick up once the legal dispute has subsided. We aim to resurrect this topic
in February 2022, after the AGM has been conducted

Point 10 - TS and DD pointed out that the Trust has two representatives for the director’s box for all home and away
matches. The SD, Chairman and AD normally represent the Trust for matches; however, other TBMs are
welcome to attend if neither the SD, Chairman nor AD is able to attend a match. RT reiterated that we have
these seats, so we should take them up. Please let DD know of any preferences.

On an aside there is some staying power on that board - meeting lasted 3hours 35.

“The Goverance subgroup would pick up once the legal dispute has subsided…we aim to pick this up in February 2022”

Am I reading that right or is there some other way to read it?!

The AGM may be telling us some blockbusting news at this rate

I'm going to suggest that you are reading it the same way that I did and that the legal dispute has been closed off (presumably with some level of a deal)

The use of the word "subsided" is quite telling I thought, suggests it may already be over and the AGM will tell us how?

 

[3swan]

“The Goverance subgroup would pick up once the legal dispute has subsided…we aim to pick this up in February 2022”

Am I reading that right or is there some other way to read it?!

The AGM may be telling us some blockbusting news at this rate

I'm going to suggest that you are reading it the same way that I did and that the legal dispute has been closed off (presumably with some level of a deal)

The use of the word "subsided" is quite telling I thought, suggests it may already be over and the AGM will tell us how?

I doubt if any news of a ‘deal’ will be of any surprise. Like most things the longer issues go on the less importance it becomes. If a deal has been arranged I can only think which side will benefit the most.

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

So the trust have sold out and now they are drip feeding the news out gentle, about right?

 

[Marchamjack]

“The Goverance subgroup would pick up once the legal dispute has subsided…we aim to pick this up in February 2022”

Am I reading that right or is there some other way to read it?!

The AGM may be telling us some blockbusting news at this rate

I'm going to suggest that you are reading it the same way that I did and that the legal dispute has been closed off (presumably with some level of a deal)

The use of the word "subsided" is quite telling I thought, suggests it may already be over and the AGM will tell us how?

And also using that word suggests it’s been going away (the legal dispute) for some time…which would tally with the Trust’s continuing obfuscation on the matter. DD didn’t directly answer my question on the Trust fb page before Xmas when I asked him directly if he was still behind the action, which struck me as odd/disconcerting at the time.

Wow, just wow if this plays out now as it all appears

 

[J_B]

The Trust board have a mandate from the membership to pursue legal action. If they are not going to do so they require another mandate from the membership to reverse the decision. If not they should all get out.

 

[Vetchonian]

“The Goverance subgroup would pick up once the legal dispute has subsided…we aim to pick this up in February 2022”

Am I reading that right or is there some other way to read it?!

The AGM may be telling us some blockbusting news at this rate

I'm going to suggest that you are reading it the same way that I did and that the legal dispute has been closed off (presumably with some level of a deal)

The use of the word "subsided" is quite telling I thought, suggests it may already be over and the AGM will tell us how?

Thats certainly how I read it Phil, to me it looks as though the court action is over and a "settlement" has been agreed.
Trust is 20 years old give it 5 years and it will cease to exist I certainly doubt it will still have a 21% stake

 

[PSumbler]

The Trust board have a mandate from the membership to pursue legal action. If they are not going to do so they require another mandate from the membership to reverse the decision. If not they should all get out.

Strictly speaking they don't need a mandate not to pursue the action, they can take that decision as a board without consultation to the members.

The same could have been said for the original decision to pursue the action or not but it was always felt by the board (at the time) that the decision was too big to make off our own shoulders and a members consultation was the only way to proceed.

Amending that strategy now feels completely wrong.

 

[J_B]

The Trust board have a mandate from the membership to pursue legal action. If they are not going to do so they require another mandate from the membership to reverse the decision. If not they should all get out.

Strictly speaking they don't need a mandate not to pursue the action, they can take that decision as a board without consultation to the members.

The same could have been said for the original decision to pursue the action or not but it was always felt by the board (at the time) that the decision was too big to make off our own shoulders and a members consultation was the only way to proceed.

Amending that strategy now feels completely wrong.

I bow to your greater knowledge Phil. It would be a very foolish board that changed the mandate without consulting the membership in my opinion. The board should remember that they represent the membership and work on their behalf.