• ***IMPORTANT*** SOME PASSWORDS NOT WORKING

    There has been some issues with user passwords. Some users may need to reset their passwords to login to the forum. Please use the password reset option when logging in. If you do experience issues and find our account is locked then please email admin@jackarmy.net Thanks

No Companies House update on changes to Swans articles

Cinio Dydd Sul

Lee Trundle
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
1,864
Reaction score
86
I've seen a few tweets about this still not yet having happened.

Can someone clever than me please speculate as to why this hasn't been done yet? What possible reasons for not informing them could there be!?
 
Darran said:
It’s obviously because the wánkers on the trust board have no idea what day of the week it is.

Indeed, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of someone at the club to inform companies house of such changes?
 
Chief said:
Darran said:
It’s obviously because the wánkers on the trust board have no idea what day of the week it is.

Indeed, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of someone at the club to inform companies house of such changes?

I have no idea but I’m sure Uxy will know.
 
Chief said:
Darran said:
It’s obviously because the wánkers on the trust board have no idea what day of the week it is.

Indeed, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of someone at the club to inform companies house of such changes?

I thought they had to be posted at CH within x days of the board meetoing at which they were approved

the fact that they havent been suggests that maybe they weren't approved or maybe they were never agreed in the first place

Given the complete silence that the Trust board have taken in the past few weeks their inability to answer this question anywhere is not surprising
 
PSumbler said:
Chief said:
Indeed, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of someone at the club to inform companies house of such changes?

I thought they had to be posted at CH within x days of the board meetoing at which they were approved

the fact that they havent been suggests that maybe they weren't approved or maybe they were never agreed in the first place

Given the complete silence that the Trust board have taken in the past few weeks their inability to answer this question anywhere is not surprising

15 days is my understanding. https://www.gov.uk/make-changes-to-your-limited-company/constitution-and-articles-of-association

It is very curious. One of the questions I asked was whether there had been a board meeting to ratify these changes, and I was informed on 2nd March that this had happened. This is up on the FB Members Group.

Given the comments that the deal had been finalised, as had everything around it, that was the reason for my question to determine whether everything actually had been finalised or was it an agreement in principle, akin to the one we had in 2017. Not least to understand whether the members had any options available to them.

So, we come to the end of March and still nothing filed. Not entirely sure what the Trust Board is hoping for here, as these will be filed and dated eventually for everyone to see. And, while I'm not entirely sure Gareth Davies is a massive supporter of the Trust, he is very much on-the-ball with what he needs to do. I doubt this is an oversight on his part.
 
PSumbler said:
Chief said:
Indeed, but shouldn't it be the responsibility of someone at the club to inform companies house of such changes?

I thought they had to be posted at CH within x days of the board meetoing at which they were approved

the fact that they havent been suggests that maybe they weren't approved or maybe they were never agreed in the first place

Given the complete silence that the Trust board have taken in the past few weeks their inability to answer this question anywhere is not surprising

Forgive me if this is a silly question.

Are you saying that you possibly think the deal didn't actually go through!?
 
Chief said:
PSumbler said:
I thought they had to be posted at CH within x days of the board meetoing at which they were approved

the fact that they havent been suggests that maybe they weren't approved or maybe they were never agreed in the first place

Given the complete silence that the Trust board have taken in the past few weeks their inability to answer this question anywhere is not surprising

Forgive me if this is a silly question.

Are you saying that you possibly think the deal didn't actually go through!?

Not exactly that but I am wondering if things presented by the Trust board as "completed by the club" may not actually have been

Having had first hand experience of our majority owners attention to detail on some of these things it maybe that it is all intended to be ratified at a board meeting but has yet to be

The silence of the Trust board and the hiding behind the word confidential leaves it all as a mystery
 
PSumbler said:
Chief said:
Forgive me if this is a silly question.

Are you saying that you possibly think the deal didn't actually go through!?

Not exactly that but I am wondering if things presented by the Trust board as "completed by the club" may not actually have been

Having had first hand experience of our majority owners attention to detail on some of these things it maybe that it is all intended to be ratified at a board meeting but has yet to be

The silence of the Trust board and the hiding behind the word confidential leaves it all as a mystery

That directly contradicts the answers the Trust Board gave to my questions. And indeed others.

But I suspect it is the case.
 
Given the complete unwillingness now of the Trust board to interact with its paying members, it appears they have simply given up on being a members group.

It feels like deliberate sabotage from within and call me cynical, but I can't help feeling there were a number of sleeper cells on the board waiting for the right opportunity to do this. While I do think it's incompetence and ignorance from some, I think a deliberate path taken by others to the benefit of those other than the members.
 
NeathJack said:
Given the complete unwillingness now of the Trust board to interact with its paying members, it appears they have simply given up on being a members group.

It feels like deliberate sabotage from within and call me cynical, but I can't help feeling there were a number of sleeper cells on the board waiting for the right opportunity to do this. While I do think it's incompetence and ignorance from some, I think a deliberate path taken by others to the benefit of those other than the members.

One is a visible Jenkins arselicker isn’t he?
 
monmouth said:
NeathJack said:
Given the complete unwillingness now of the Trust board to interact with its paying members, it appears they have simply given up on being a members group.

It feels like deliberate sabotage from within and call me cynical, but I can't help feeling there were a number of sleeper cells on the board waiting for the right opportunity to do this. While I do think it's incompetence and ignorance from some, I think a deliberate path taken by others to the benefit of those other than the members.

One is a visible Jenkins arselicker isn’t he?

I would be amazed if there was any relationship between DD and HJ. Not least as I don't think HJ would have any interest.

I think it's probably much simpler, and I think the Chair's recent statement tells us as much. The Trust has always had a balancing act between between the governance aspects (which were largely why it was set up) versus the fluffier, fan engagement stuff. At the moment, I think the board is light on the former and heavy on the latter.

I dare say they've come under pressure from people associated with the club and the majority owners, saying that one is affecting the other, and that has impacted the thinking. How genuine that is is another thing entirely ... I can't say it negatively impacted our ability to do things prior to the last summer, and the stuff that has been widely touted as new things the Trust now has open to it are the sort of stuff we were already doing or had available to us.

I also think there are one or two on the board who genuinely think this is a cracking deal, either because they agreed it or because they don't understand it. Or both. In fact, I know of board members who have extolled its virtues to other people. That's fair enough, whether a deal is acceptable or not is subjective in many ways. Plus, of course, they have access to more information than us.

That last part, and the refusal to answer basic questions (or answer them in a misleading way, at best, or untruthfully, at worst), as well as the lack of consultation or any real engagement since the forums, are the key issues. But what's more important in my eyes is just what is the current position? Has the deal actually been completed? How can the members get that clarity?

We're probably approaching the point where the members either just give it up as a bad job, or force the board to comply. I suspect the current board strategy is to hunker down in the Winchester and wait for it all to blow over. They might well be succesful in that aproach, although it will somewhat cripple the Trust going forward IMO.
 
Just incompetence and stupidity mixed with arrogance then? Oh well, that's reassuringly like every Welsh Committee polluted by that particular breed that I've seen. Shame it's wrecked 20 years of other peoples work, but that's the norm too now, I suppose.
 
monmouth said:
Just incompetence and stupidity mixed with arrogance then? Oh well, that's reassuringly like every Welsh Committee polluted by that particular breed that I've seen. Shame it's wrecked 20 years of other peoples work, but that's the norm too now, I suppose.

Elements of that, but also a number of good people doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, based off bad advice or their own preference.

There are a lot of reasons why we've got to this position though. It'd make a good book, and we wouldn't have to worry about anyone sueing anyone ...
 
I think its a shame that the people that were on the Trust Board when the vote went for court action weren't able to stay on the board [for whatever reason] to see that through and it's a massive shame that the first vote went against court action, I'm sure the outcome would have been different.
This lot on the Board seem like they're a law unto themselves and seemingly couldn't careless what the membership want or think, the Trust is run for the fans for the benefit and welfare of the club and its Fan's, is it not??
 

Coventry City v Swansea City

Online statistics

Members online
54
Guests online
966
Total visitors
1,020

Forum statistics

Threads
17,829
Messages
255,745
Members
4,689
Back
Top