Swansea City owners talking to new investors

[sainthelens]

Cowbridge?

Was thinking more along the lines of the Mayor of Llantrisant.

 

[DJack]

Cowbridge?

:clap:

 

[monmouth]

Cowbridge?

 

[mayhilljack3]

Theres a lot of boll*cks written about the Trust in the opening article. All kicked into the long grass by the Trust Chairman in his AGM address to members last night.

For starters, the Chairman said the Trust has met with potential new minority investors at the request of the owners to review their motivations and fit for Swansea. That is good governance. The club is not for sale. See the AGM speech for the rest and better check I heard it right.

Also at the AGM the Trust passed a motion for term limits for Trust officers. Also good governance. This will avoid the past problem of a stagnant Trust Board with no leadership change for 12 years was it? During which the Trust’s main achievement was acting important and sleeping at the wheel while the club was sold under its nose.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Theres a lot of boll*cks written about the Trust in the opening article. All kicked into the long grass by the Trust Chairman in his AGM address to members last night.

For starters, the Chairman said the Trust has met with potential new minority investors at the request of the owners to review their motivations and fit for Swansea. That is good governance. The club is not for sale. See the AGM speech for the rest and better check I heard it right.

Also at the AGM the Trust passed a motion for term limits for Trust officers. Also good governance. This will avoid the past problem of a stagnant Trust Board with no leadership change for 12 years was it? During which the Trust’s main achievement was acting important and sleeping at the wheel while the club was sold under its nose.

So you're criticising an article that was written before the information you of speak was made public? How could the article released earlier than the AGM provide details that weren't released until the AGM? Ever thought the trust released this information in response TO articles such as this?

Not sure what you're suggesting in your last paragraph, are you suggesting the trust then should have known about something that all parties agree was actively kept from them? Was the previous Trust board meant to be clairvoyant?

 

[JackSomething]

So you're criticising an article that was written before the information you of speak was made public? How could the article released earlier than the AGM provide details that weren't released until the AGM? Ever thought the trust released this information in response TO articles such as this?

Not sure what you're suggesting in your last paragraph, are you suggesting the trust then should have known about something that all parties agree was actively kept from them? Was the previous Trust board meant to be clairvoyant?

At least the previous Trust board were trying to hold the owners and sellouts to account for their actions, unlike the current board who decided to bend over as long as they could keep their perks. Seems a strange double standard to laud a leadership group for failing to pursue action for something that they want to criticise the previous leadership group about?

If our new poster is trying to defend the current Trust board, 'kicked into the long grass' was the wrong choice of phrase. It means to delay dealing with something because you want people to forget about it. Which probably describes this incarnation of the Trust perfectly, but likely not in the way the poster intended. No apologies for being a pedant here.

 

[Darran]

Theres a lot of boll*cks written about the Trust in the opening article. All kicked into the long grass by the Trust Chairman in his AGM address to members last night.

For starters, the Chairman said the Trust has met with potential new minority investors at the request of the owners to review their motivations and fit for Swansea. That is good governance. The club is not for sale. See the AGM speech for the rest and better check I heard it right.

Also at the AGM the Trust passed a motion for term limits for Trust officers. Also good governance. This will avoid the past problem of a stagnant Trust Board with no leadership change for 12 years was it? During which the Trust’s main achievement was acting important and sleeping at the wheel while the club was sold under its nose.

So you registered to stick up for The Trust then? lol

 

[J_B]

Theres a lot of boll*cks written about the Trust in the opening article. All kicked into the long grass by the Trust Chairman in his AGM address to members last night.

For starters, the Chairman said the Trust has met with potential new minority investors at the request of the owners to review their motivations and fit for Swansea. That is good governance. The club is not for sale. See the AGM speech for the rest and better check I heard it right.

Also at the AGM the Trust passed a motion for term limits for Trust officers. Also good governance. This will avoid the past problem of a stagnant Trust Board with no leadership change for 12 years was it? During which the Trust’s main achievement was acting important and sleeping at the wheel while the club was sold under its nose.

The Trust is a members’ organisation. Its board is voted into place by its members. The board are there to serve the membership.
The Trust board asked the membership how it should pursue its grievance against the sell outs and the membership instructed the board to take them to court.
The Trust board then ignored those instructions and betrayed the very membership that it serves. They wouldn’t recognise good governance if it bit them on the backside.

 

[mayhilljack3]

Have a read of the article again mate. It takes the usual anti-Trust view on here based on a strange desire to bash the Trust as if all was great before 2021 and all has been sh*t since. I know this site is an echo chamber, but encourage you to think and take facts on board.

Good governance for minority shareholders includes having a vision for inevitable future shareholding changes and having relationships with majority shareholders to understand their motivations and objectives. If done well you can influence outcomes without having control.

 

[Darran]

The Trust is a members’ organisation. Its board is voted into place by its members. The board are there to serve the membership.
The Trust board asked the membership how it should pursue its grievance against the sell outs and the membership instructed the board to take them to court.
The Trust board then ignored those instructions and betrayed the very membership that it serves. They wouldn’t recognise good governance if it bit them on the backside.

Spot on.

 

[Uxy]

Theres a lot of boll*cks written about the Trust in the opening article. All kicked into the long grass by the Trust Chairman in his AGM address to members last night.

For starters, the Chairman said the Trust has met with potential new minority investors at the request of the owners to review their motivations and fit for Swansea. That is good governance. The club is not for sale. See the AGM speech for the rest and better check I heard it right.

Also at the AGM the Trust passed a motion for term limits for Trust officers. Also good governance. This will avoid the past problem of a stagnant Trust Board with no leadership change for 12 years was it? During which the Trust’s main achievement was acting important and sleeping at the wheel while the club was sold under its nose.

Interestingly, there’s at least one of the current board who may fall foul of the 8 year limit already. May want to feed that back to the googlemail group

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Have a read of the article again mate. It takes the usual anti-Trust view on here based on a strange desire to bash the Trust as if all was great before 2021 and all has been sh*t since. I know this site is an echo chamber, but encourage you to think and take facts on board.

Good governance for minority shareholders includes having a vision for inevitable future shareholding changes and having relationships with majority shareholders to understand their motivations and objectives. If done well you can influence outcomes without having control.

Well what has the trust achieved since 2021 besides betraying the members, refusing to interact with members and providing zero critical insight into the club. Say what want about previous boards but they did consult members on key decisions, did provide insights into inner workings of the club that were not purely propaganda pieces for the majority ownership. If we sign no one today, will there be an honest, critical press release relating to the shambles of this window addressing the lies told to us by Silverstein, Winter et al?

Or, they can be ignored as has been and will be the case going forward.

Are you genuinely naive enough to think the owners will take on board any feedback the trust board makes in relation to these prospective investors?

 

[Nocountryforoldjack]

Have a read of the article again mate. It takes the usual anti-Trust view on here based on a strange desire to bash the Trust as if all was great before 2021 and all has been sh*t since. I know this site is an echo chamber, but encourage you to think and take facts on board.

Good governance for minority shareholders includes having a vision for inevitable future shareholding changes and having relationships with majority shareholders to understand their motivations and objectives. If done well you can influence outcomes without having control.

Yeah f uck the trust

 

[mayhilljack3]

How JB do you suggest the Trust could have taken legal action when it could not obtain funding and insurance to pursue the case?

Do you think the Trust Board should have gone to members for a vote on:
option 1 - agree to stop pursuing the case because no funding,
option 2 - settle the case

I think the Americans/sellouts would have immediately withdrawn the settlement offer if the facts in option 1 was known as it would inevitably would have reached the Americans/sellouts.

Sorry to disappoint the anti-Trust narrative with some facts.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

How JB do you suggest the Trust could have taken legal action when it could not obtain funding and insurance to pursue the case?

Do you think the Trust Board should have gone to members for a vote on:
option 1 - agree to stop pursuing the case because no funding,
option 2 - settle the case

I think the Americans/sellouts would have immediately withdrawn the settlement offer if the facts in option 1 was known as it would inevitably would have reached the Americans/sellouts.

Sorry to disappoint the anti-Trust narrative with some facts.

What facts?