Trust Legal Action Called Off

[Vetchonian]

Phil Lisa ecb Monmouth uxbridge
Smart people who know what they are doing and have common sense
They should be at the forefront of any new supporters group that could emerge

Yeah completely agree on all counts.

There has been questions asked on twitter however, that some stood down as they could see the direction it was going, is there any reason why this wasn't made public at the time? Or are you bound by NDA's etc, or did I just simply miss it?

Not a dig at any of you by the way, much respect for all of the the work you all put in and the time given in what would be already busy professional lives.

I think Lisa mentioned in one of her posts that the Trust board failed to announce it...same as the others.....convenient dont you think?

 

[Uxy]

Phil Lisa ecb Monmouth uxbridge
Smart people who know what they are doing and have common sense
They should be at the forefront of any new supporters group that could emerge

Yeah completely agree on all counts.

There has been questions asked on twitter however, that some stood down as they could see the direction it was going, is there any reason why this wasn't made public at the time? Or are you bound by NDA's etc, or did I just simply miss it?

Not a dig at any of you by the way, much respect for all of the the work you all put in and the time given in what would be already busy professional lives.

Ha, yes, I was made aware that a certain someone who blocked me on Twitter has decided to go in that direction.

I'm sure Lisa will want to speak for herself, and Cudey already has, but it was no real secret and I'd told plenty of people, albeit without doing some sort of public statement. To be honest, the Trust should have been the ones doing that.

As for the why, it was mainly down to how the subgroup was operating. When I stood down in the summer, it was pretty clear that there was concern from those remaining on the Trust Board about losing certain knowledge (I wouldn't say expertise, that's Lisa and Dai). So, to ensure continuity until we got the papers served, I agreed to be part of the subgroup. Up to that point the subgroup had operated on a pretty equal basis with everyone seeing the same communications, party to discussions with the legal advisors etc. However, things changed and we were hearing about discussions after they had happened, which caused numerous issues as our input could not be considered beforehand. This kept on being raised, but kept on happening, and it got to the point where the subgroup simply wasn't fit for purpose (I believe those are the exact words I used in my final comms).

I've got no real issue about that. If that's how the Trust Board wanted it to operate it's their prerogative, they are the ones that fronted up for election, even if it wasn't what I expected or thought I'd agreed to. However, at the time of leaving, while we were obviously aware there were discussions with Silverstein (there had also been when I was Chair, it's only right that negotiations continue if there was the possibility of an agreement), the funding/insurance was in the process of being finalised and agreements signed and I didn't seriously expect they'd sign an agreement without some sort of consultation with the members, even if they had some pressure to do so. I'd stressed how important consulting with the members was plenty of times previously, it's literally the Trust Board's #1 duty.

Think that covers it and hopefully explains the background at the time. I'm not one for grandstanding generally and I think it probably would have been if I'd make some sort of public statement, plus of course it'd have created difficulties for the Trust. They really should have made that public though, particularly Lisa's resignation.

 

[Itchysphincter]

Still trying to digest this news 24 hours on. The Supporters' Trust should no longer be allowed to operate under the name. Thank God we had true custodians of the club all those years ago.

 

[PSumbler]

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/swansea-city-fans-fume-supporters-23112729

 

[Longlostjack]

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/swansea-city-fans-fume-supporters-23112729

Can anyone translate the final paragraph into English?

 

[monmouth]

Phil Lisa ecb Monmouth uxbridge
Smart people who know what they are doing and have common sense
They should be at the forefront of any new supporters group that could emerge

I agree with the sentiment, but guess that the majority mentioned will be burned out after their stint in the Trust board.

Yes, the minority (me), I can safely say, is not burnt out, did no work, has no common sense and generally has no idea what it is doing. I can, however add my thanks to all the others and repeat my wish of the time that Lisa had been Supporter Director from 2016 onwards, plus all the others in the key Trust Board positions with majority support through to the endgame. We'd be in a much better place now.

In terms of new groups...better to all join the trust and put them back in those positions. Not that I think they would go for it in a million years, and I don't blame them a jot. Plus of course, the horse has bolted and the Trust now is of no account in terms of influence or governance, and is no more than a vehicle to (fail to) impress their friends, and to sit in the director's box at games with some tawdry pieces of silver to eat with their fellow sell outs and buy outs. Whilst of course those same other non-Trust club directors will be smirking inside, thinking 'wankers' in every interaction with the stupid preening self interested and self important morons that tossed away our club's USP for their own self aggrandisement.

I think it's fair to say these non-achieving no marks have got my goat. Lisa, Clasey, Phil, Ux...each worth 100 of them.

 

[Risc]

Yeah completely agree on all counts.

There has been questions asked on twitter however, that some stood down as they could see the direction it was going, is there any reason why this wasn't made public at the time? Or are you bound by NDA's etc, or did I just simply miss it?

Not a dig at any of you by the way, much respect for all of the the work you all put in and the time given in what would be already busy professional lives.

Ha, yes, I was made aware that a certain someone who blocked me on Twitter has decided to go in that direction.

I'm sure Lisa will want to speak for herself, and Cudey already has, but it was no real secret and I'd told plenty of people, albeit without doing some sort of public statement. To be honest, the Trust should have been the ones doing that.

As for the why, it was mainly down to how the subgroup was operating. When I stood down in the summer, it was pretty clear that there was concern from those remaining on the Trust Board about losing certain knowledge (I wouldn't say expertise, that's Lisa and Dai). So, to ensure continuity until we got the papers served, I agreed to be part of the subgroup. Up to that point the subgroup had operated on a pretty equal basis with everyone seeing the same communications, party to discussions with the legal advisors etc. However, things changed and we were hearing about discussions after they had happened, which caused numerous issues as our input could not be considered beforehand. This kept on being raised, but kept on happening, and it got to the point where the subgroup simply wasn't fit for purpose (I believe those are the exact words I used in my final comms).

I've got no real issue about that. If that's how the Trust Board wanted it to operate it's their prerogative, they are the ones that fronted up for election, even if it wasn't what I expected or thought I'd agreed to. However, at the time of leaving, while we were obviously aware there were discussions with Silverstein (there had also been when I was Chair, it's only right that negotiations continue if there was the possibility of an agreement), the funding/insurance was in the process of being finalised and agreements signed and I didn't seriously expect they'd sign an agreement without some sort of consultation with the members, even if they had some pressure to do so. I'd stressed how important consulting with the members was plenty of times previously, it's literally the Trust Board's #1 duty.

Think that covers it and hopefully explains the background at the time. I'm not one for grandstanding generally and I think it probably would have been if I'd make some sort of public statement, plus of course it'd have created difficulties for the Trust. They really should have made that public though, particularly Lisa's resignation.

Not just the person you're thinking about though Ux. I wasn't aware Lisa had left until yesterday for example, if it was clear the trust were going down this route then I would have thought something would have been said by one of the outgoing individuals, but you've cleared that up in your fourth paragraph.

Cheers.

 

[Resolvenjack]

So, if the trust were to be wound up am I right in thinking that all the 'perks' that these shysters now have would no longer be available.

If so then for me it would be worthwhile pursuing this avenue to see if it could be done.

 

[Uxy]

Ha, yes, I was made aware that a certain someone who blocked me on Twitter has decided to go in that direction.

I'm sure Lisa will want to speak for herself, and Cudey already has, but it was no real secret and I'd told plenty of people, albeit without doing some sort of public statement. To be honest, the Trust should have been the ones doing that.

As for the why, it was mainly down to how the subgroup was operating. When I stood down in the summer, it was pretty clear that there was concern from those remaining on the Trust Board about losing certain knowledge (I wouldn't say expertise, that's Lisa and Dai). So, to ensure continuity until we got the papers served, I agreed to be part of the subgroup. Up to that point the subgroup had operated on a pretty equal basis with everyone seeing the same communications, party to discussions with the legal advisors etc. However, things changed and we were hearing about discussions after they had happened, which caused numerous issues as our input could not be considered beforehand. This kept on being raised, but kept on happening, and it got to the point where the subgroup simply wasn't fit for purpose (I believe those are the exact words I used in my final comms).

I've got no real issue about that. If that's how the Trust Board wanted it to operate it's their prerogative, they are the ones that fronted up for election, even if it wasn't what I expected or thought I'd agreed to. However, at the time of leaving, while we were obviously aware there were discussions with Silverstein (there had also been when I was Chair, it's only right that negotiations continue if there was the possibility of an agreement), the funding/insurance was in the process of being finalised and agreements signed and I didn't seriously expect they'd sign an agreement without some sort of consultation with the members, even if they had some pressure to do so. I'd stressed how important consulting with the members was plenty of times previously, it's literally the Trust Board's #1 duty.

Think that covers it and hopefully explains the background at the time. I'm not one for grandstanding generally and I think it probably would have been if I'd make some sort of public statement, plus of course it'd have created difficulties for the Trust. They really should have made that public though, particularly Lisa's resignation.

Not just the person you're thinking about though Ux. I wasn't aware Lisa had left until yesterday for example, if it was clear the trust were going down this route then I would have thought something would have been said by one of the outgoing individuals, but you've cleared that up in your fourth paragraph.

Cheers.

No worries. And feel free to point them in the direction of this, or even directly to me on that there Twitter. It's proving very therapeutic today!

 

[Uxy]

So, if the trust were to be wound up am I right in thinking that all the 'perks' that these shysters now have would no longer be available.

If so then for me it would be worthwhile pursuing this avenue to see if it could be done.

I'm not sure how that would work at the current time, unless you found a buyer for the Trust's assets. If it just had a cash position, I would suggest this could be more of a possibility, regardless of whether it's actually desirable.

Ever the optimist, I hope the Trust's time will come again. There is always the need for a strong organisation representing the fans and, regardless of whether it proves as much practical benefit as it did, having a director and access to info is still of a degree of value. But, bloody hell, it's got a long road ahead of it and, for some, it'll never get there now. Even if there was structural and significant change.

 

[Risc]

So, if the trust were to be wound up am I right in thinking that all the 'perks' that these shysters now have would no longer be available.

If so then for me it would be worthwhile pursuing this avenue to see if it could be done.

I'm not sure how that would work at the current time, unless you found a buyer for the Trust's assets. If it just had a cash position, I would suggest this could be more of a possibility, regardless of whether it's actually desirable.

Ever the optimist, I hope the Trust's time will come again. There is always the need for a strong organisation representing the fans and, regardless of whether it proves as much practical benefit as it did, having a director and access to info is still of a degree of value. But, bloody hell, it's got a long road ahead of it and, for some, it'll never get there now. Even if there was structural and significant change.

The trust have asset's? The shares are now pretty much worthless.

 

[Uxy]

I'm not sure how that would work at the current time, unless you found a buyer for the Trust's assets. If it just had a cash position, I would suggest this could be more of a possibility, regardless of whether it's actually desirable.

Ever the optimist, I hope the Trust's time will come again. There is always the need for a strong organisation representing the fans and, regardless of whether it proves as much practical benefit as it did, having a director and access to info is still of a degree of value. But, bloody hell, it's got a long road ahead of it and, for some, it'll never get there now. Even if there was structural and significant change.

The trust have asset's? The shares are now pretty much worthless.

That is, as they say, subjective. What isn't subjective is that they exist, so what would you do with them in that situation?

 

[CygnusX1]

Taken from the Trust’s website:

The main aims of the Swans Trust are to:

1. maintain a professional football club in Swansea;
2. bring the football club closer to its fans all over the world and within its local community;
3. have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club;
4. maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above;
5. represent the views, needs and aims of our members (and supporters) at all times;
6. ensure we are an all-inclusive, positive and representative organisation that is open and accessible to all supporters regardless of their age, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality, or religious/moral beliefs and without discrimination of any kind


So much for #5….

 

[Risc]

The trust have asset's? The shares are now pretty much worthless.

That is, as they say, subjective. What isn't subjective is that they exist, so what would you do with them in that situation?

Not alot you can do, no one will want to buy them, why would they?

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Ha, yes, I was made aware that a certain someone who blocked me on Twitter has decided to go in that direction.

I'm sure Lisa will want to speak for herself, and Cudey already has, but it was no real secret and I'd told plenty of people, albeit without doing some sort of public statement. To be honest, the Trust should have been the ones doing that.

As for the why, it was mainly down to how the subgroup was operating. When I stood down in the summer, it was pretty clear that there was concern from those remaining on the Trust Board about losing certain knowledge (I wouldn't say expertise, that's Lisa and Dai). So, to ensure continuity until we got the papers served, I agreed to be part of the subgroup. Up to that point the subgroup had operated on a pretty equal basis with everyone seeing the same communications, party to discussions with the legal advisors etc. However, things changed and we were hearing about discussions after they had happened, which caused numerous issues as our input could not be considered beforehand. This kept on being raised, but kept on happening, and it got to the point where the subgroup simply wasn't fit for purpose (I believe those are the exact words I used in my final comms).

I've got no real issue about that. If that's how the Trust Board wanted it to operate it's their prerogative, they are the ones that fronted up for election, even if it wasn't what I expected or thought I'd agreed to. However, at the time of leaving, while we were obviously aware there were discussions with Silverstein (there had also been when I was Chair, it's only right that negotiations continue if there was the possibility of an agreement), the funding/insurance was in the process of being finalised and agreements signed and I didn't seriously expect they'd sign an agreement without some sort of consultation with the members, even if they had some pressure to do so. I'd stressed how important consulting with the members was plenty of times previously, it's literally the Trust Board's #1 duty.

Think that covers it and hopefully explains the background at the time. I'm not one for grandstanding generally and I think it probably would have been if I'd make some sort of public statement, plus of course it'd have created difficulties for the Trust. They really should have made that public though, particularly Lisa's resignation.

Not just the person you're thinking about though Ux. I wasn't aware Lisa had left until yesterday for example, if it was clear the trust were going down this route then I would have thought something would have been said by one of the outgoing individuals, but you've cleared that up in your fourth paragraph.

Cheers.

Hi. Further to Andy’s post, from my perspective it was pretty simple.

I resigned from the position of affiliate / consultant type stuff to the sub group and the Trust in mid October for much the same reasons as Andy. Lack of involvement in decision making, being informed after the event rather than consulted. Making it clear it was an unacceptable way to run the sub group from my perspective on several occasions had no effect.

More than anything I knew that the people I was trying to give advice to were really not particularly interested in what I had to say as it wasn’t, perhaps, what they wanted to hear. I also just became fed up of people trying to patronise me. ‘Mansplaining’ I think it’s called

Anyway, when I resigned I expected, as is always the case, the organisation that I left to put out a statement. It’s not for the person leaving to do so (you didn’t have Steve Cooper putting out a message saying ‘I’ve gone’ and it’s the same in the corporate world).

Nothing happened. Indeed, I didn’t even received an acknowledgment of my resignation from the Trust chair, any member of the sub group or anyone else, with the exception of the Trust secretary who sent me a kind message thanking me for my time.
I waited a few weeks, assuming people were busy or whatever, but nothing, so eventually I put a public message on this board (at the beginning of December) confirming what was being speculated which was that I’d resigned. The only official acknowledgment from the Trust was my name being removed from their site. Even last night, they seemed ‘unaware’ whether anything had been announced and Chris Golledge incorrectly stated that he ‘knew’ Dave Dalton had written to me (he hadn’t and still has not although he didn’t correct the misstatement).

I would echo Andy’s point that I genuinely had absolutely no expectation that the people in the Trust board would sign an agreement with the majority owners that was contrary to the members mandate without consultation. I assumed the delay was being caused by tying up the details around funding. I also strongly advised against doing anything without consultation although I had also given some considerable thought and provided a detailed list of the types of agreements that could be considered if the funding proved problematic which may be acceptable to members on consultation. It was ignored as far as I am aware.

Hopefully that makes sense. As I said yesterday, I only wish I’d been more influential. The fact that the people on the Trust board didn’t even see it as worthwhile to say I’d resigned probably says it all about how they viewed my lack of importance. Barely a second thought I suspect.