Swansea City owners talking to new investors

[BLAZE]

Like I said, youve always admitted to how you come across online. I didnt think it would insult you and it wasnt intended too either

 

[Uxy]

Like I said, youve always admitted to how you come across online. I didnt think it would insult you and it wasnt intended too either

I find that a little strange to be honest, but there we are.

 

[BLAZE]

Well you've always treated it as a badge of honour from what I remember of you back in the day. I do believe the way you communicate is a bit unbecoming at times and doesnt mix well with a person who was meant to speak for the people

But I'll not try justifying it any further. I am sorry than you were offended though

 

[Uxy]

Well you've always treated it as a badge of honour from what I remember of you back in the day. I do believe the way you communicate is a bit unbecoming at times and doesnt mix well with a person who was meant to speak for the people

But I'll not try justifying it any further. I am sorry than you were offended though

I think you've confused feeble attempts at deflection or self-deprecating humour with me trying to be obnoxious, to be honest.

We're all a work in progress though, aren't we? There's plenty I'd do differently now. I guess this exchange is a good example of where someone can say something they think is fine, even it can come across as a bit poor.

And see, this is why I don't post on here anymore :lol:

 

[Londonlisa2001]

As said already it is not a false premise. Your response is simply deflection. No funder signed an agreement to fund Trust legal action.

Also I had confirmed last night too that the Trust solicitors were definite in advising against consultation with members before settling the dispute (different so what you say above) to avoid the settlement breaking down when it became known the Trust didnt have funding.

Had enough of this nonsense now to be honest.

Firstly offers for both parts of the necessary funding were in place. They weren’t signed because the new Trust board refused to agree them. Nothing is actually ‘signed’ until it’s agreed at which point both parties sign an execution copy and the deal is done.

It’s quite easy to see from emails that I had a quick look at earlier to refresh my memory EXACTLY who delayed, prevaricated, had side meetings etc etc etc.

Secondly I didn’t say anything about solicitors. I said that the trust board had been strongly advised that members needed to be consulted. I know because I was one of those that advised it. Again, emails show EXACTLY what happened.

At no point did it become ‘known that there was no funding’. What became ‘known’ is that certain people involved in the current Trust board were unprepared to do what they had been told to do by the membership. They decided that the funding was not enough for them, despite reams of advice.

No funding offer was ever going to be enough for those that, at the end of the day, didn’t want to take legal action in case the Americans stopped talking to them and they could no longer pretend to be in the know.

Literally nothing would have been lost by the way if the settlement had broken down. It’s a totally crap agreement that none of the Trust board even seemed to understand. You can sit in board meetings and influence nothing and hold shares that can’t be sold without agreement. Better off staying with what the trust had and retaining some sort of pride. Again advice was given as to what sort of settlement may be acceptable and others refused to even present it to the owners. They may have been ‘irritated’ and people may have actually had to go and sit somewhere else in the stadium I guess and the owners may have stopped giving the odd breadcrumb of information as a way of covering their backsides for what they fear may be unpopular decisions.

Now do us a favour, drop the anonymity if you believe anything that you are saying and say it under your own name. This misinformation campaign that’s been going on ever since this ridiculous agreement was made, all under the cloak of anonymous accounts is pathetic.

 

[Jack Madri]

God forbid they don't win the tombola for the wine, dine and comfy seats for the day and pretend that they and their wives really think they are someone for the day

 

[tim_healings]

My names Tim, my Dad debunked the glorious notion of a squirrel proof bird feeder and was banned from Tesco for yanking crunchy nut cornflakes out of a customer’s trolley whom he erroneously believed was my mum. Speaking of whom, mums highlights are stuffing the Christmas turkey with a battery powered magnifying glass and being subjected to a jacket potato explosion across the windscreen of her beloved Nissan 100nx initiated by my furious brother.

Anyway I digress, what we talking about?

 

[Uxy]

Had enough of this nonsense now to be honest.

Firstly offers for both parts of the necessary funding were in place. They weren’t signed because the new Trust board refused to agree them. Nothing is actually ‘signed’ until it’s agreed at which point both parties sign an execution copy and the deal is done.

It’s quite easy to see from emails that I had a quick look at earlier to refresh my memory EXACTLY who delayed, prevaricated, had side meetings etc etc etc.

Secondly I didn’t say anything about solicitors. I said that the trust board had been strongly advised that members needed to be consulted. I know because I was one of those that advised it. Again, emails show EXACTLY what happened.

At no point did it become ‘known that there was no funding’. What became ‘known’ is that certain people involved in the current Trust board were unprepared to do what they had been told to do by the membership. They decided that the funding was not enough for them, despite reams of advice.

No funding offer was ever going to be enough for those that, at the end of the day, didn’t want to take legal action in case the Americans stopped talking to them and they could no longer pretend to be in the know.

Literally nothing would have been lost by the way if the settlement had broken down. It’s a totally crap agreement that none of the Trust board even seemed to understand. You can sit in board meetings and influence nothing and hold shares that can’t be sold without agreement. Better off staying with what the trust had and retaining some sort of pride. Again advice was given as to what sort of settlement may be acceptable and others refused to even present it to the owners. They may have been ‘irritated’ and people may have actually had to go and sit somewhere else in the stadium I guess and the owners may have stopped giving the odd breadcrumb of information as a way of covering their backsides for what they fear may be unpopular decisions.

Now do us a favour, drop the anonymity if you believe anything that you are saying and say it under your own name. This misinformation campaign that’s been going on ever since this ridiculous agreement was made, all under the cloak of anonymous accounts is pathetic.

I think this thread highlights the settlement perfectly. Certain people think they’re being clever, but where they’ve ended up doesn’t really amount to anything.

We’re in the slightly perverse situation where the Trust is actively supporting a strategy of chasing investment to fill a structural deficit, rather than looking to get the club finances in order. It’s cheerleading it’s own dilution.

It seems to think the Trust will forever have 5% of the shareholding but that ignores what happens when new shares get issued. That A class holding is already less than 5%. 5% of the voting rights is an irrelevance in anything from a statutory perspective I’m aware of. It’s certainly worthless financially as it can’t be sold without a change to the Articles.

It’s ironic really. The proposed benefit of retaining that shareholding is to ensure governance, by being able to attend board meetings, view the books, be involved and informed about critical decisions. However, a) the last month shows that not to be reality (so no change there) and b) the Trust isn’t going to call out the issues that threaten the clubs existence (the spiralling debt) anyway. I disagree a little that it’s entirely without value as an organisation, but it can’t achieve the aims of a Trust now.

I guess the question is, after the deal, whether the Trust can comment publicly on such things anyway. I’d love to see the SHA, as I have a hunch there’s a clause in there that prohibits it being critical in public. We know there are NDAs on the deal, but not where they stop.

To the faceless Trust chap posting, it’s a shame you don’t put this much effort and passion into the public sphere. For the Trust to have any chance it needs to convince the fans that there is still merit in joining a supporters organisation, even if it’s not going to focus on the boardroom side. You’ll only do that if you front up on social media and the like.

Ah sod it, what am I doing? This has all been said before. There are no winners in any of this. Anyway, if anyone wants the backup file of all the legal documents let me know. It’s a pretty hefty size and I could always use the loft space. If anyone wants to write a book on the duplicity in 2016, you’re welcome to it.