Tonight's Trust Meeting

[Nocountryforoldjack]

#TogetherStronger today according the trust.

W@nkers the lot of them

 

[Darran]

#TogetherStronger today according the trust.

The replies to the tweet sum up the feeling.


https://twitter.com/swanstrust/status/1494960668415512576?s=21

 

[monmouth]

#TogetherStronger today according the trust.

The replies to the tweet sum up the feeling.


https://twitter.com/swanstrust/status/1494960668415512576?s=21

#wankers

was my favourite

 

[AndyCole]

Some ex Trust folk and their clingons here need to take a break from the internet

It's beyond embarrassing. Beyond belief.

Making a laughing stock of our Club, in so many ways.

Much like today's Martine debacle on the pitch.

 

[Dewi1jack]

Some ex Trust folk and their clingons here need to take a break from the internet

It's beyond embarrassing. Beyond belief.

Making a laughing stock of our Club, in so many ways.

Much like today's Martine debacle on the pitch.

Just a quick question.

If you use the words like " make a laughing stock of OUR club", why do you use the name of some sh1tehead manure player instead of one of ours?

You've attacked the club for more years than I care to remember, no matter what they do.
We could win the CL and you'd still have a pop at the club

Love Swansea, Hate Cardiff, detest with a fuken vengeance Yernited.
And yes, I ended up seeing them after they were relegated when they had no fans.
Tw@s like you band wagon jumping had all fuked off to support Liverpool, Everton, City, Leeds, Tottenham etc etc
At least City still had fair crowds, keeping most of their fans when they got relegated

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

So it's my understanding that the trust board are justifying their actions based on prohibitive costs....

I wonder if they ever considered the possibility of dropping the case against the Americans.....but still pursuing the sellouts??? Surely that would have been cheaper& therefore less risky?

 

[Uxy]

So it's my understanding that the trust board are justifying their actions based on prohibitive costs....

I wonder if they ever considered the possibility of dropping the case against the Americans.....but still pursuing the sellouts??? Surely that would have been cheaper& therefore less risky?

There seemed to be two thrusts to this prohibitive costs argument:

a) Goodman Derrick, who prepared the budget for expected costs, stated on Thursday that costs could be higher than budgeted; and
b) if it went to appeal, they'd need to get further funding to cover costs of appeal

I'll be honest, it just seemed like excuses to me. Of course the future is unpredictable. It may have required further action in the future. I think they confirmed they were sufficiently funded, even given caveats, to proceed. They also mentioned the appeal scenario was unlikely.

Either way, this should have come to the membership for review.

 

[Marchamjack]

Some of the initial answers now coming out on the members FB site are reading as scant and certainly evasive, if not (likely in some instances) bound in ignorance of what the answers might actually be.

What an ongoing car crash this really is. Sad to see

 

[Uxy]

Some of the initial answers now coming out on the members FB site are reading as scant and certainly evasive, if not (likely in some instances) bound in ignorance of what the answers might actually be.

What an ongoing car crash this really is. Sad to see

Had my answers too, which don't really expand on what was said on the night. In fairness, probably weren't going to as I had the opportunity to have mine answered on Thursday.

Two concerns so far though, and I don't think I'm breaking any requests for confidentiality here:

Firstly, pretty clear the lawyers are writing these answers. That'll have an impact on funds.

Secondly, the very premise that could hide behind confidentiality on key information is not a line that can be held IMO.