Supporters Trust Statement

[Darran]

I’ll start by saying that I like everyone want the whole saga with the pending court case sorted as soon as it can.
I’ll also say that I had doubts about renewing my Trust membership, but being given free continuation took that decision away.
Now my thoughts on whether the Trust director should attend matches in the directors box.
Stu Mc is a supporters representative of a 21% shareholder on the board and has the right to be there. Whether in his absence others can have the privilege is always open to debate.
My main thought though is if the case eventually comes to court, then I want the Trust to show that they have played by the book. To shy away from the directors box now could in my mind give a small chink that could be used against the Trust. It could be used as not keeping lines of communication open.
In the bigger picture it means very little but why take that small chance

Well that’s the Chinese investment out of the window then.

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

Make them accountable, give them targets for commitment of time and set objectives that relate to the time allocated to Trust activity. If these objectives are not met then they need to step aside.

Ok that seems quite a professional approach. How would you reconcile that with the fact that the board is made up of unpaid volunteers, many of whom have full time jobs and young families? If they aren’t acceptable due to not being able to meet the objectives you’d like to set, who would you replace them with?

It often escapes notice that there aren’t many people putting their hands up. Most of the biggest critics have never even tried to get involved. Sniping from the sidelines is easy.

I'm a big critic... I was once a big fan of it, I did volunteer and attend a few meetings but due to illness at the time I stopped. The whole Huw Cooze saga and the original vote to not take legal killed it for me and its plain for everyone to see that the trust are only at the club in name, nothing else, the trust are constantly shit on by the owners and quite frankly they have lost the trust of a number of fans. It is a thankless task though and the critisism should not be of a personal nature imo.

 

[Darran]

Ok that seems quite a professional approach. How would you reconcile that with the fact that the board is made up of unpaid volunteers, many of whom have full time jobs and young families? If they aren’t acceptable due to not being able to meet the objectives you’d like to set, who would you replace them with?

It often escapes notice that there aren’t many people putting their hands up. Most of the biggest critics have never even tried to get involved. Sniping from the sidelines is easy.

I'm a big critic... I was once a big fan of it, I did volunteer and attend a few meetings but due to illness at the time I stopped. The whole Huw Cooze saga and the original vote to not take legal killed it for me and its plain for everyone to see that the trust are only at the club in name, nothing else, the trust are constantly shit on by the owners and quite frankly they have lost the trust of a number of fans. It is a thankless task though and the critisism should not be of a personal nature imo.

Constantly shit on and still being shit on as their own statement from yesterday proves.
Why the fuck would you want to be hanging around with people that constantly shit on you?

 

[Belfy]

The non inclusion of the trust once again in this decision regards Silver bloke is further evidence for any court action of their continued disregard for the trust as a major shareholder. It’s a positive in that respect.

 

[monmouth]

I am another that fairly or not, almost certainly not, has lost faith with the Trust since the original building bridges strategy, that was palpably nonsense and the consequent weighted vote. That means again, fairly or unfairly, I am internally sceptical that the real appetite is there to see the legal action through. Noises such as seeing what the new board and chairman think, just amplifies those bells. What links Darrans point in for me is that the cosying up with the yanks representative whilst the yanks take a massive dump on the Trust makes those bells deafening. For my money, the Trust and the Supporter Director should be on a hostile war footing now, not trying to be mates and sniffing around the table for scraps. How many times does the ‘getting information’ argument have to be shown to be a rubbish before the ‘sorry for rubbing your nose in it...again’ are seen for the bullshit it all is. The Supporter Director has been made to look like a right c++t again. We need more Don Logan and less Dale Winton.

I’d like to see every single communication like yesterday’s ‘they’ve shit on us again’ end with, ‘The Trust Board remains 100% committed to legal action as promised to, and mandated by, the members, in the quickest possible timeframe.‘. Let’s have no chance of weaselling out, whoever (whomever?) is on the Trust Board.

 

[Darran]

I am another that fairly or not, almost certainly not, has lost faith with the Trust since the original building bridges strategy, that was palpably nonsense and the consequent weighted vote. That means again, fairly or unfairly, I am internally sceptical that the real appetite is there to see the legal action through. Noises such as seeing what the new board and chairman think, just amplifies those bells. What links Darrans point in for me is that the cosying up with the yanks representative whilst the yanks take a massive dump on the Trust makes those bells deafening. For my money, the Trust and the Supporter Director should be on a hostile war footing now, not trying to be mates and sniffing around the table for scraps. How many times does the ‘getting information’ argument have to be shown to be a rubbish before the ‘sorry for rubbing your nose in it...again’ are seen for the bullshit it all is. The Supporter Director has been made to look like a right c++t again. We need more Don Logan and less Dale Winton.

I’d like to see every single communication like yesterday’s ‘they’ve shit on us again’ end with, ‘The Trust Board remains 100% committed to legal action as promised to, and mandated by, the members, in the quickest possible timeframe.‘. Let’s have no chance of weaselling out, whoever (whomever?) is on the Trust Board.

Magnificently put and I thank you. It’s not difficult to understand is it?
You can just see Jake turning up soon and Stuart warmly welcoming him to Swansea.
It’s a piss take end of.

 

[Cooperman]

I’d like to see every single communication like yesterday’s ‘they’ve shit on us again’ end with, ‘The Trust Board remains 100% committed to legal action as promised to, and mandated by, the members, in the quickest possible timeframe.‘. Let’s have no chance of weaselling out, whoever (whomever?) is on the Trust Board.

Instead we’ve been sent this...

“With that in mind, we have initiated contact with the majority owners so we can discuss this issue, and the other issues between us”

Wibble

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

I’d like to see every single communication like yesterday’s ‘they’ve shit on us again’ end with, ‘The Trust Board remains 100% committed to legal action as promised to, and mandated by, the members, in the quickest possible timeframe.‘. Let’s have no chance of weaselling out, whoever (whomever?) is on the Trust Board.

Instead we’ve been sent this...

“With that in mind, we have initiated contact with the majority owners so we can discuss this issue, and the other issues between us”

Wibble

Fucking surrender monkeys springs to mind.

 

[Belfy]

Badlands. Jasper on the other site. To name just two.

I saw a post from Phil in the past day or so that laid out exactly what is happening.

The problem is that people won’t accept it.

Legal process takes an age. At the moment, the legal system is backed up beyond all belief due to the impact of Covid and also the underinvestment in the system for a decade.

The Trust issued a statement yesterday. Within 24 hours of the news of the Silverstein situation. It explained exactly what had happened. The Trust was part of a board meeting to discuss the possibility of a loan being made to the club which could be converted to shares at a later date. The Trust was told discussion would continue. The club issued a statement (which described an ‘investment’ and a board seat). Is that the same thing as had been discussed ? I’m not sure anyone could definitely say.

One thing that can be definitively said is that the Trust, as the second largest shareholder and as a director of the company, should know. In advance of public statements.

As is often the case, there are more fingers pointed at the Trust for not being told than there are at the people who don’t tell them.

Thing is it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the key is legal action and enabling the information to be layed before a court to decide. And that must happen.
As I said earlier this further failure to include the trust is very positive, it is even more concrete evidence of their non inclusion and supports very clearly the suggestion that Jenkins and co and the yanks did the very same thing at the point of sale of shares. Its all good.

 

[Darran]

Badlands. Jasper on the other site. To name just two.

I saw a post from Phil in the past day or so that laid out exactly what is happening.

The problem is that people won’t accept it.

Legal process takes an age. At the moment, the legal system is backed up beyond all belief due to the impact of Covid and also the underinvestment in the system for a decade.

The Trust issued a statement yesterday. Within 24 hours of the news of the Silverstein situation. It explained exactly what had happened. The Trust was part of a board meeting to discuss the possibility of a loan being made to the club which could be converted to shares at a later date. The Trust was told discussion would continue. The club issued a statement (which described an ‘investment’ and a board seat). Is that the same thing as had been discussed ? I’m not sure anyone could definitely say.

One thing that can be definitively said is that the Trust, as the second largest shareholder and as a director of the company, should know. In advance of public statements.

As is often the case, there are more fingers pointed at the Trust for not being told than there are at the people who don’t tell them.

Thing is it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the key is legal action and enabling the information to be layed before a court to decide. And that must happen.
As I said earlier this further failure to include the trust is very positive, it is even more concrete evidence of their non inclusion and supports very clearly the suggestion that Jenkins and co and the yanks did the very same thing at the point of sale of shares. Its all good.

That’s a great post for you.

 

[Belfy]

Thing is it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the key is legal action and enabling the information to be layed before a court to decide. And that must happen.
As I said earlier this further failure to include the trust is very positive, it is even more concrete evidence of their non inclusion and supports very clearly the suggestion that Jenkins and co and the yanks did the very same thing at the point of sale of shares. Its all good.

That’s a great post for you.

All my posts are great, apparently you did one once as well.

 

[Darran]

That’s a great post for you.

All my posts are great, apparently you did one once as well.

Who wrote that one for you? :lol:

 

[Belfy]

All my posts are great, apparently you did one once as well.

Who wrote that one for you? :lol:

Its just because we agree on something, nothing odd in that. This board is on its arse BTW.