Swansea City owners talking to new investors

[Uxy]

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I think the Americans/sellouts would have immediately withdrawn the settlement offer if the facts in option 1 was known as it would inevitably would have reached the Americans/sellouts.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

Oh dear. That simply isn’t true. There was funding in place, by the Trust boards own admission. The argument the Trust board made at the time was that it might need to get some more further down the track, and was committed to using all assets in order to proceed with the action. All stuff agreed with the members in 2019.

If it was beyond their wit to consult with the members in such a way as protected their position then maybe they should have sought advice. Easily done. Hell, we did it twice before.

 

[mayhilljack3]

I disagree with the above. As I understand it, after Andy Godden stepped down it became clear when details were looked at by others that there was not funding in place and the funder wanted to include punitive terms. Of course the Trust Board would have continued to “big up” that funding was achieved in public to drag the Americas/sellouts into an actual discussion about settling.

I realise this goes against Andy Godden’s preferred storyline but so it goes.

I am off to work now but will check to see if anything is worth commenting on later.

Including any takers to my question to JB above?

 

[Uxy]

I disagree with the above. As I understand it, after Andy Godden stepped down it became clear when details were looked at by others that there was not funding in place and the funder wanted to include punitive terms. Of course the Trust Board would have continued to “big up” that funding was achieved in public to drag the Americas/sellouts into an actual discussion about settling.

I realise this goes against Andy Godden’s preferred storyline but so it goes.

I am off to work now but will check to see if anything is worth commenting on later.

Including any takers to my question to JB above?

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest you are a member of the trust board, yet again hiding under cover rather than fronting up. And for such a person to put out such blatant untruths is simply disgraceful.

To suggest that the board weren’t aware of the detail, or the documents, before is either a) a lie or b) a damning indictment of how asleep they were.

I’ve still got all the old mails. Which is handy.

 

[LeonWasTheDog's]

Easiest way to bury it and avoid the obvious questions?

There has been much discussion this window about the owners "going back" on deal agreements and stalling transfers. This should not really be a surprise - my initial resignation from the Trust came about because we took the deal (whatever the rights and wrongs of it) to the members and got agreement only for Levien to renegade on that deal almost immediately. At that point for me the deal was dead and we needed to hit legal action but the board was split and the majority wanted to carry on and chat! But given he wasnt for moving then we know what happened next :lol:

Their interest in this club disappeared the night we lost to Southampton at the Liberty and its no coincidence that some of them have not been seen here since

The sooner we get shot of them, the better. It's been a sh*tshow from the start. There's always the risk of getting worse owner(s) of course, but we've got to take that risk as we're going nowhere under this lot.

 

[JackSomething]

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.

A site isn't an echo chamber just because everyone lines up to point out you're talking shit. :lol:

If I came on here and said that Joel Latibeaudiere was the greatest footballer in the world, every reply would disagree with me. Does that mean it's an echo chamber full of sheep, or would it just be the result of me talking bollocks?

 

[Jack Madri]

The only thing they ever fought for,was who's turn it was to be wined and dined and the posh seat perks.

 

[Risc]

The only thing they ever fought for,was who's turn it was to be wined and dined and the posh seat perks.

This current lot, yeah.

 

[Jack Madri]

This current lot, yeah.

Sorry meant the later mob

 

[PSumbler]

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.

Interesting

Especially as the only Trust stuff included in the article was the wording from their minutes...nothing more or nothing less Strange that you seem to have taken the article as anti Trust as it was anything but so not quite sure on your sensitivity issues.

Which was clearly misleading the members.

But thanks again for the rest of the narrative and taking the time to register to share your personal attack, have yourself a nice day now, I intend to have mine :lol:

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I disagree with the above. As I understand it, after Andy Godden stepped down it became clear when details were looked at by others that there was not funding in place and the funder wanted to include punitive terms. Of course the Trust Board would have continued to “big up” that funding was achieved in public to drag the Americas/sellouts into an actual discussion about settling.

I realise this goes against Andy Godden’s preferred storyline but so it goes.

I am off to work now but will check to see if anything is worth commenting on later.

Including any takers to my question to JB above?

The premise on which your question was based was false so it’s a pointless question.

I’d remind you that at several members of the current trust board were also part of the board that had already reviewed in huge depth the details of funding in place and assessed them to be sufficient.

The current trust board were advised in the strongest possible terms that the membership should be consulted about any change away from the agreed path. They were also given actual lists of areas that needed to be dealt with as part of any settlement and refused to even present them to the owners.

And actually, even leaving that aside, the way the Trust board behaved after making the decision to accept the ‘deal’ was reprehensible. A refusal to answer questions, or to pretend questions were answered when they clearly hadn’t be understood, a misrepresentation of the deal as it did stand, confusion about what had and hadn’t been agreed, hiding behind NDAs when people pointed out the severe flaws etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Interesting time to leave for work btw.

 

[Uxy]

The premise on which your question was based was false so it’s a pointless question.

I’d remind you that at several members of the current trust board were also part of the board that had already reviewed in huge depth the details of funding in place and assessed them to be sufficient.

The current trust board were advised in the strongest possible terms that the membership should be consulted about any change away from the agreed path. They were also given actual lists of areas that needed to be dealt with as part of any settlement and refused to even present them to the owners.

And actually, even leaving that aside, the way the Trust board behaved after making the decision to accept the ‘deal’ was reprehensible. A refusal to answer questions, or to pretend questions were answered when they clearly hadn’t be understood, a misrepresentation of the deal as it did stand, confusion about what had and hadn’t been agreed, hiding behind NDAs when people pointed out the severe flaws etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Interesting time to leave for work btw.

Depends if you’re self employed. Or retired and making it up.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Depends if you’re self employed. Or retired and making it up.

Or not in the U.K.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

@mayhilljack3 hope you had a good shift yesterday. You've been conspicuous by your absence since.

Do the trust have any opinion on the window then? Is there a statement coming? Or did the ridiculous deal they signed prevent any comment without American permission?

 

[mayhilljack3]

Oh dear. That simply isn’t true. There was funding in place, by the Trust boards own admission. The argument the Trust board made at the time was that it might need to get some more further down the track, and was committed to using all assets in order to proceed with the action. All stuff agreed with the members in 2019.

If it was beyond their wit to consult with the members in such a way as protected their position then maybe they should have sought advice. Easily done. Hell, we did it twice before.

Assuming you are Andrew Godden, can you answer with a straight YES or NO the following question: Was there a funding agreement signed by a funder when you stepped down as Trust Chair?

A straight YES or NO please without any waffle.

 

[mayhilljack3]

The premise on which your question was based was false so it’s a pointless question.

I’d remind you that at several members of the current trust board were also part of the board that had already reviewed in huge depth the details of funding in place and assessed them to be sufficient.

The current trust board were advised in the strongest possible terms that the membership should be consulted about any change away from the agreed path. They were also given actual lists of areas that needed to be dealt with as part of any settlement and refused to even present them to the owners.

And actually, even leaving that aside, the way the Trust board behaved after making the decision to accept the ‘deal’ was reprehensible. A refusal to answer questions, or to pretend questions were answered when they clearly hadn’t be understood, a misrepresentation of the deal as it did stand, confusion about what had and hadn’t been agreed, hiding behind NDAs when people pointed out the severe flaws etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Interesting time to leave for work btw.

It is not a false premise. Your response is simply deflection.