So anyway, this Trust "Deal"

[PSumbler]

There are many ways that this Trust deal gives us cause for concern with some key ones being

* Continual hiding behind a confidentiality clause to avoid the answers to questions particularly around the new SHA that is in place. This is bad enough for things that we do know about but what is there in that agreement that we know nothing about which would give cause for additional concern?

* The £1.5m additional payments for reaching the Premier League (£500k each year for three years) and the source of those funds. I asked a simple YES/NO question as to whether that was coming from the club but was told "it's confidential" which leads me to assume it is and therefore likely to be effectively the dividends we would ahve received anyway. Nobody seems prepared to answer whether this impacts the organisation's ability to receive dividends over and above (based on its shareholding) especially if that 500k was based on 5% shareholding, it would surely follow that total dividends payable in the PL would be £10m...

* The silence at the AGM on some of the questions raised by Lisa told a story that even the (self proclaimed) experts on the group have no idea what they have signed up to and makes the shunning of LIsa's expertise in their group possibly a bigegr mistake than signing the deal in the way they did

*The conversion of the loan notes. They have "been told" that the notes will be converted but we know all too well that what the owners say and do are not always completely aligned statements/actions. I still do not see why they would want to convert the notes as a lower mid table Championship club and it is clear that the Trust board have taken this comment at face value because there is no guarantee it will happen

And thats probably just the start

 

[Pegojack]

I'm unable to guage the answer to this question from what I've picked up on PS so far. I've not acted yet on my Trust membership becaue I want to know - can we get a vote of no confidence underway, or do I just say to them, as a supporter of 57 years standing and my father for 20 years before me, I am FECKIN APPALLED by the action you've taken, you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, you can take my membership and shove it as far up your arse as you possibly can, and never contact me again.

 

[Uxy]

I'm unable to guage the answer to this question from what I've picked up on PS so far. I've not acted yet on my Trust membership becaue I want to know - can we get a vote of no confidence underway, or do I just say to them, as a supporter of 57 years standing and my father for 20 years before me, I am FECKIN APPALLED by the action you've taken, you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, you can take my membership and shove it as far up your arse as you possibly can, and never contact me again.

An EGM can be forced with 5% of the members requesting one. That's assuming the Trust would force the members to require to get those numbers.

 

[Uxy]

There are many ways that this Trust deal gives us cause for concern with some key ones being

* Continual hiding behind a confidentiality clause to avoid the answers to questions particularly around the new SHA that is in place. This is bad enough for things that we do know about but what is there in that agreement that we know nothing about which would give cause for additional concern?

* The £1.5m additional payments for reaching the Premier League (£500k each year for three years) and the source of those funds. I asked a simple YES/NO question as to whether that was coming from the club but was told "it's confidential" which leads me to assume it is and therefore likely to be effectively the dividends we would ahve received anyway. Nobody seems prepared to answer whether this impacts the organisation's ability to receive dividends over and above (based on its shareholding) especially if that 500k was based on 5% shareholding, it would surely follow that total dividends payable in the PL would be £10m...

* The silence at the AGM on some of the questions raised by Lisa told a story that even the (self proclaimed) experts on the group have no idea what they have signed up to and makes the shunning of LIsa's expertise in their group possibly a bigegr mistake than signing the deal in the way they did

*The conversion of the loan notes. They have "been told" that the notes will be converted but we know all too well that what the owners say and do are not always completely aligned statements/actions. I still do not see why they would want to convert the notes as a lower mid table Championship club and it is clear that the Trust board have taken this comment at face value because there is no guarantee it will happen

And thats probably just the start

On the Lisa point, I think it depends on the perspective. Obviously, in terms of what we would view as the best interests of the Trust, it's madness to lose that expertise. However, if you're looking to ram any old thing through to end it, it's a necessary step.

 

[PSumbler]

There are many ways that this Trust deal gives us cause for concern with some key ones being

* Continual hiding behind a confidentiality clause to avoid the answers to questions particularly around the new SHA that is in place. This is bad enough for things that we do know about but what is there in that agreement that we know nothing about which would give cause for additional concern?

* The £1.5m additional payments for reaching the Premier League (£500k each year for three years) and the source of those funds. I asked a simple YES/NO question as to whether that was coming from the club but was told "it's confidential" which leads me to assume it is and therefore likely to be effectively the dividends we would ahve received anyway. Nobody seems prepared to answer whether this impacts the organisation's ability to receive dividends over and above (based on its shareholding) especially if that 500k was based on 5% shareholding, it would surely follow that total dividends payable in the PL would be £10m...

* The silence at the AGM on some of the questions raised by Lisa told a story that even the (self proclaimed) experts on the group have no idea what they have signed up to and makes the shunning of LIsa's expertise in their group possibly a bigegr mistake than signing the deal in the way they did

*The conversion of the loan notes. They have "been told" that the notes will be converted but we know all too well that what the owners say and do are not always completely aligned statements/actions. I still do not see why they would want to convert the notes as a lower mid table Championship club and it is clear that the Trust board have taken this comment at face value because there is no guarantee it will happen

And thats probably just the start

On the Lisa point, I think it depends on the perspective. Obviously, in terms of what we would view as the best interests of the Trust, it's madness to lose that expertise. However, if you're looking to ram any old thing through to end it, it's a necessary step.

True enough and it was pretty clear from the AGM that it was considered by the Trust board that Rupert's 30 years of 'expertise' on 'stuff' was sufficient for what they needed

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

Isn't all of this crying over spilt milk.... Damage is done innit?

 

[JackSomething]

Isn't all of this crying over spilt milk.... Damage is done innit?

That's odd logic. If someone punches you from behind and runs off with your wallet, would you decide there was no need to report it to the police? After all, the damage has been done innit?

 

[Londonlisa2001]

There are many ways that this Trust deal gives us cause for concern with some key ones being

* Continual hiding behind a confidentiality clause to avoid the answers to questions particularly around the new SHA that is in place. This is bad enough for things that we do know about but what is there in that agreement that we know nothing about which would give cause for additional concern?

* The £1.5m additional payments for reaching the Premier League (£500k each year for three years) and the source of those funds. I asked a simple YES/NO question as to whether that was coming from the club but was told "it's confidential" which leads me to assume it is and therefore likely to be effectively the dividends we would ahve received anyway. Nobody seems prepared to answer whether this impacts the organisation's ability to receive dividends over and above (based on its shareholding) especially if that 500k was based on 5% shareholding, it would surely follow that total dividends payable in the PL would be £10m...

* The silence at the AGM on some of the questions raised by Lisa told a story that even the (self proclaimed) experts on the group have no idea what they have signed up to and makes the shunning of LIsa's expertise in their group possibly a bigegr mistake than signing the deal in the way they did

*The conversion of the loan notes. They have "been told" that the notes will be converted but we know all too well that what the owners say and do are not always completely aligned statements/actions. I still do not see why they would want to convert the notes as a lower mid table Championship club and it is clear that the Trust board have taken this comment at face value because there is no guarantee it will happen

And thats probably just the start

On the Lisa point, I think it depends on the perspective. Obviously, in terms of what we would view as the best interests of the Trust, it's madness to lose that expertise. However, if you're looking to ram any old thing through to end it, it's a necessary step.

Can I just say that I offered advice as best as I could and I believe my experience was helpful in a few ways to what was being discussed.

However, and I think it’s really important to repeat this. I would ALWAYS in my professional life and on the Trust take the advice of as many experts as possible. Tax advice, commercial advice, financial advice, legal advice. I am concerned that this hasn’t been done as comprehensively as one would expect for what is, after all, the settlement of a multi million pound claim.

Secondly, irrespective of what the experts say, the key here is the membership, if members want to do something, even if it’s not what I would think the best thing to do, or what professional advisors employed by the Trust think is the best thing to do, that’s absolutely what needs to be done. They gave a clear instruction which has not been followed.

My main concern is the lack of engagement.

 

[Cooperman]

I'm unable to guage the answer to this question from what I've picked up on PS so far. I've not acted yet on my Trust membership becaue I want to know - can we get a vote of no confidence underway, or do I just say to them, as a supporter of 57 years standing and my father for 20 years before me, I am FECKIN APPALLED by the action you've taken, you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, you can take my membership and shove it as far up your arse as you possibly can, and never contact me again.

You can't say anything to them because they've all gone off grid.

 

[Darran]

I'm unable to guage the answer to this question from what I've picked up on PS so far. I've not acted yet on my Trust membership becaue I want to know - can we get a vote of no confidence underway, or do I just say to them, as a supporter of 57 years standing and my father for 20 years before me, I am FECKIN APPALLED by the action you've taken, you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, you can take my membership and shove it as far up your arse as you possibly can, and never contact me again.

You can't say anything to them because they've all gone off grid.

They’ve all f*cked off from Twitter anyway.

 

[Niigata Jack]

They've well and truly fuked the fans over, makes you think that thoughts of their own self interests were first and foremost in their minds, no way should any of the board be allowed to continue in my opinion and an interim board installed for the time being, we also don't know what has gone into any NDA that was signed, that has to be disclosed to a new board as well, surely.

 

[NeathJack]

You can't say anything to them because they've all gone off grid.

They’ve all f*cked off from Twitter anyway.

And from the Members Facebook group. It sums the whole thing up really.

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

Isn't all of this crying over spilt milk.... Damage is done innit?

That's odd logic. If someone punches you from behind and runs off with your wallet, would you decide there was no need to report it to the police? After all, the damage has been done innit?

A bad analogy there in fairness, if the trust had done anything illegal then I would call the police but all they've done is be morally bankrupt .... Ok so what are you hoping to achieve by dissecting this whole issue? Best case scenario is the current trust members get kicked out, what does that achieve in the grand scheme of it. Like I said the damage is done. My logic is no more odd than yours.

 

[JackSomething]

That's odd logic. If someone punches you from behind and runs off with your wallet, would you decide there was no need to report it to the police? After all, the damage has been done innit?

A bad analogy there in fairness, if the trust had done anything illegal then I would call the police but all they've done is be morally bankrupt .... Ok so what are you hoping to achieve by dissecting this whole issue? Best case scenario is the current trust members get kicked out, what does that achieve in the grand scheme of it. Like I said the damage is done. My logic is no more odd than yours.

I'll admit the analogy could have been better.

But the general feeling among Swans support seems to be that the Trust have gone against the will of the members, who they are supposed to represent (as Lisa has more eloquently stated above). Surely you believe they must be prepared to handle the repercussions of that? That should be that they lost their positions on the Trust board and the associated benefits. I'm sure they'll have no problem with that if they truly believe they made the right decision.

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

A bad analogy there in fairness, if the trust had done anything illegal then I would call the police but all they've done is be morally bankrupt .... Ok so what are you hoping to achieve by dissecting this whole issue? Best case scenario is the current trust members get kicked out, what does that achieve in the grand scheme of it. Like I said the damage is done. My logic is no more odd than yours.

I'll admit the analogy could have been better.

But the general feeling among Swans support seems to be that the Trust have gone against the will of the members, who they are supposed to represent (as Lisa has more eloquently stated above). Surely you believe they must be prepared to handle the repercussions of that? That should be that they lost their positions on the Trust board and the associated benefits. I'm sure they'll have no problem with that if they truly believe they made the right decision.

Yeah I agree, I'm as mad as the next fan about what they've done but I saw it coming years ago. I'd be glad to see them all ousted from their positions but the dirty deed has been done and nothing will change that.