No Companies House update on changes to Swans articles

[Darran]

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??

It’s a massive shame Max but I don’t think we appreciate how much work was taking over their lives.

 

[Niigata Jack]

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??

It’s a massive shame Max but I don’t think we appreciate how much work was taking over their lives.

I don't doubt it Pross, I couldn't have done it then and couldn't do it now, sadly.

 

[Uxy]

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??

This whole first vote thing isn't right I'm afraid. All it did was delay things by a few months, as everything that happened after December 2017 anyway would have merely happened after August 2017 instead. The Trust was effectively on the litigation path from that point.

 

[Niigata Jack]

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??

This whole first vote thing isn't right I'm afraid. All it did was delay things by a few months, as everything that happened after December 2017 anyway would have merely happened after August 2017 instead. The Trust was effectively on the litigation path from that point.

I'm going on what was reported/said at the time and that was a no to litigation.

 

[Uxy]

This whole first vote thing isn't right I'm afraid. All it did was delay things by a few months, as everything that happened after December 2017 anyway would have merely happened after August 2017 instead. The Trust was effectively on the litigation path from that point.

I'm going on what was reported/said at the time and that was a no to litigation.

Indeed it was, at August 2017. Then when the deal fell down in December 2017 cos the yanks pulled out, the Trust went down the mediation path. We'd have had to do that in August 2017 if the vote went for legal anyway.

 

[Niigata Jack]

I'm going on what was reported/said at the time and that was a no to litigation.

Indeed it was, at August 2017. Then when the deal fell down in December 2017 cos the yanks pulled out, the Trust went down the mediation path. We'd have had to do that in August 2017 if the vote went for legal anyway.

They never entered a mediation path though, they the yanks were clearly not interested, which has lead to lots of time wasted, I think in any other walk of life they'd have been in court sharpish and it probably wouldn't have gone very well for them after their failure to take part in any talks.

It is what it is now and for me at least the Trust is now a nonentity.

 

[Uxy]

Indeed it was, at August 2017. Then when the deal fell down in December 2017 cos the yanks pulled out, the Trust went down the mediation path. We'd have had to do that in August 2017 if the vote went for legal anyway.

They never entered a mediation path though, they the yanks were clearly not interested, which has lead to lots of time wasted, I think in any other walk of life they'd have been in court sharpish and it probably wouldn't have gone very well for them after their failure to take part in any talks.

It is what it is now and for me at least the Trust is now a nonentity.

Time wasted indeed, but steps the Trust had to take to satisfy the court that all efforts were made. That's unfortunately the reality. Anyway, all covered ad nauseum in the past.

As for the Trust now, I do worry. But as fans we still have the same need for such an organisation.

 

[PSumbler]

Had this text this morning

View attachment Articles 1.jpg

And Lisa posted this earlier on the Trust facebook page

View attachment Articles 2.jpg

 

[Uxy]

Yeah, it's not great.

Some good stuff - guaranteed director, guaranteed observer, 5% of the voting rights regardless. If there's a future sale of the Class B shares by the majority owners then the Trust gets tag along rights too. The board meeting stuff. Now, we could say that's stuff we already had as part of the original SHA, but hey ho.

As for the rest, not great. 5% of the shareholding now holds no real economic value, and any dividend return is likely to be diminished over time (divi's will be based on shareholding not voting rights). The Trust can't sell that 5% even if wanted to. If there is a future sale the Trust can either sell all of their holding or none, nothing in between. No veto rights or anything like that, not even on basic stuff that would be meaningless to the others, such as the club's name and colours.

It does also seem that some wordsmithing has been going on in terms of the answers given to the members, with regards to dividends. Unless there's something in the SHA there's absolutely no protection in the event of SCFC LLC being sold, leaving the Trust high and dry.

We'll never know what's in the SHA by the looks of things, but a) I hold out little hope it's meaningful and b) christ knows what surprises might be in there.

As it stands, I think this is now worse than simply walking away from the legal case. It's an agreement that gives the impression of providing protections but actually doing the opposite.

 

[Vetchonian]

Yeah, it's not great.

Some good stuff - guaranteed director, guaranteed observer, 5% of the voting rights regardless. If there's a future sale of the Class B shares by the majority owners then the Trust gets tag along rights too. The board meeting stuff. Now, we could say that's stuff we already had as part of the original SHA, but hey ho.

As for the rest, not great. 5% of the shareholding now holds no real economic value, and any dividend return is likely to be diminished over time (divi's will be based on shareholding not voting rights). The Trust can't sell that 5% even if wanted to. If there is a future sale the Trust can either sell all of their holding or none, nothing in between. No veto rights or anything like that, not even on basic stuff that would be meaningless to the others, such as the club's name and colours.

It does also seem that some wordsmithing has been going on in terms of the answers given to the members, with regards to dividends. Unless there's something in the SHA there's absolutely no protection in the event of SCFC LLC being sold, leaving the Trust high and dry.

We'll never know what's in the SHA by the looks of things, but a) I hold out little hope it's meaningful and b) christ knows what surprises might be in there.

As it stands, I think this is now worse than simply walking away from the legal case. It's an agreement that gives the impression of providing protections but actually doing the opposite.

the words tucked and up come to mind