Trust Legal Action Called Off

[3swan]

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.

Treat people how you want to be treated yourself comes to mind.

In my working life when similar things have happened, I just think it says a lot about them. Just a small polite message goes a long way and shows professionalism.

 

[monmouth]

In my working life when similar things have happened, I just think it says a lot about them. Just a small polite message goes a long way and shows professionalism.

Not listening to someone that knows better than you with a lot more experience and quality also says, and explains, rather a lot.

 

[Darran]

In my working life when similar things have happened, I just think it says a lot about them. Just a small polite message goes a long way and shows professionalism.

Not listening to someone that knows better than you with a lot more experience and quality also says, and explains, rather a lot.

It’s a well known fact that part of the reason current Trust Board member Sian Davies resigned from the board is because she wasn’t allowed by other Trust board members to sit in the directors box away at QPR.
As soon as those other Trust board members stood down she stood for the board again.
Speaks volumes that.

 

[3swan]

In my working life when similar things have happened, I just think it says a lot about them. Just a small polite message goes a long way and shows professionalism.

Not listening to someone that knows better than you with a lot more experience and quality also says, and explains, rather a lot.

Very true, some people see it as a sign of weakness, while the correct way is to use all skills that are available to you. Always better to ask for help than carry on regardless.

 

[Risc]

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.

Thanks for the reply Lisa.

I missed your post on here in December sorry, first I had heard about you leaving was yesterday. Shocked by the rest of your comments and by Darran’s post to be honest. Frightening how bad things have got and how quick.

 

[Baron Goblet]

I have always been impressed by the passion of those who have devoted time to the Trust. The passsion that sees them travel to midweek games and get back at home at 2am in a shared car. And the outsiders who have challenged the set up over the years. I have sat with guys on both sides of what has been a tussle of words and intentions.

On point 5 of the Trust mandate re supporters and members I would imagine the majority of fans have moved on and probably dont dwell over pursuing the previous owners through the Trust.

The Trust exists and probably needs to be refined and slimmed down.

Thanks for all the work invested and the time that saw the club grow into a billion dollar business.

The double and finishing above Cardiff may be what we can look forward to in the short term and on a weekly basis. The points are close again and it does unite most of us.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

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.

Thanks for the reply Lisa.

I missed your post on here in December sorry, first I had heard about you leaving was yesterday. Shocked by the rest of your comments and by Darran’s post to be honest. Frightening how bad things have got and how quick.

Not at all! I don’t expect people to have read my posts. That’s why I would have hoped the trust would have announced such things as they have a wider audience than just a forum.

To be honest I have absolutely no knowledge about what Darran has posted. I have never been attracted to the thought of using the trust’s directors box seats and have never been in them.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I have always been impressed by the passion of those who have devoted time to the Trust. The passsion that sees them travel to midweek games and get back at home at 2am in a shared car. And the outsiders who have challenged the set up over the years. I have sat with guys on both sides of what has been a tussle of words and intentions.

On point 5 of the Trust mandate re supporters and members I would imagine the majority of fans have moved on and probably dont dwell over pursuing the previous owners through the Trust.

The Trust exists and probably needs to be refined and slimmed down.

Thanks for all the work invested and the time that saw the club grow into a billion dollar business.

The double and finishing above Cardiff may be what we can look forward to in the short term and on a weekly basis. The points are close again and it does unite most of us.

I can only speak for myself and say that apart from a few minutes here and there I don’t much care about whether we finish above Cardiff. For the two best periods of my Swans supporting life I’ve never even noticed them. It would be great to be the first to do the double but in the wider scheme of things it’s not that big a deal to finish above them. To me anyway.

 

[Darran]

Thanks for the reply Lisa.

I missed your post on here in December sorry, first I had heard about you leaving was yesterday. Shocked by the rest of your comments and by Darran’s post to be honest. Frightening how bad things have got and how quick.

Not at all! I don’t expect people to have read my posts. That’s why I would have hoped the trust would have announced such things as they have a wider audience than just a forum.

To be honest I have absolutely no knowledge about what Darran has posted. I have never been attracted to the thought of using the trust’s directors box seats and have never been in them.

I don’t tell lies and I’ve never posted one on here,about anyone,ever.

 

[waynekerr55]

I have always been impressed by the passion of those who have devoted time to the Trust. The passsion that sees them travel to midweek games and get back at home at 2am in a shared car. And the outsiders who have challenged the set up over the years. I have sat with guys on both sides of what has been a tussle of words and intentions.

On point 5 of the Trust mandate re supporters and members I would imagine the majority of fans have moved on and probably dont dwell over pursuing the previous owners through the Trust.

The Trust exists and probably needs to be refined and slimmed down.

Thanks for all the work invested and the time that saw the club grow into a billion dollar business.

The double and finishing above Cardiff may be what we can look forward to in the short term and on a weekly basis. The points are close again and it does unite most of us.

Yeah, I wonder why. Wathan, Vincent and DaiSport helped that by spreading parts of the story as gospel

 

[PSumbler]

https://twitter.com/JCJJMB/status/1494035780712423432

 

[Longlostjack]

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.

It’s such a pity that the competent ones - yourself, Phil, Ux, ECB, Dai Little all left the Trust or roles, leaving the field open to absolute shysters. If only you’d stayed . Easy to say from the sofa I know.

 

[PSumbler]

I have read again the club statement that was put out.

It says ‘ the club, the Swansea City Supporters’ Trust and the former majority owners of the club have reached an agreement’.

I do not understand this at all. The Trust was in dispute with the former majority owners (mentioned) and the current majority owners (not mentioned). The club was not involved other than on a technicality and Jake Silverstein was not involved (despite being at the forefront of the statement).

Two things strike me. One is that the statement coming from someone that, on the face of it, simply has made a relatively small loan to the club and has no ownership whatsoever is incredibly odd. Secondly is that the explicit statement has been made that the club itself has reached an agreement when that can’t be the case.

It seems to me that it may be a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters in the minds of fans to make them believe that the Trust’s actions were against the club (and former owners) which is simply not true. It’s designed to make people think that it’s the club that benefits from this.

Amongst the anger and upset it will be easy to lose sight of this misdirection which seemingly has been agreed with the Trust as it’s a joint statement.

I have just read this again myself (the club statement not your post)

The sheer fact that the Trust board endorsed the club statement said it all - it was createdpurely to make people think the action somehow involved the club. It never did and the current board should have been advising the club not to make the statement. They didn't. Another part of a calculated move

 

[PSumbler]

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.

It’s such a pity that the competent ones - yourself, Phil, Ux, ECB, Dai Little all left the Trust or roles, leaving the field open to absolute shysters. If only you’d stayed . Easy to say from the sofa I know.

For me I walked away (as you know) in 2017 after the initial deal terms changed and the board did not accept my recommendation to call them (owners) out on it and proceed with a recommendation of legal action. It was a split and very close vote. Of those there then that are there now you know which way they voted.

I returned in 2018 as the board (under Alan) had moved to the stage where they were proceeding with legal action and it was a clear mandate that I wanted to take on and deliver. FOr two years it was mentally draining and took its toll. Andy, Cudey and Lisa will all tell you about endless calls, reading of long complex legal documents and - certainly from my side - trying to understand things I never anticipated having to need to understand. 13/14 months into that two years I made the decision I needed time back in my life and that is why I stood down in 2021. Bar that 8/9 month absence it was the end of 16 years on the board, 15 as Chair.

I know that Andy and Stu felt the same after 20+ years between them - there is no telling how much that legal case drained those involved in it and that is why my anger has increased steadily over the past 24 hours.

 

[Niigata Jack]

https://planetswans.co.uk/2022/02/16/swans-trust-the-morning-after-the-day-before/

I can't even bring myself to read it just now. I believed so strongly in the whole club model from the start, these are yet more bitter pills...and to be stabbed in the back by 'our' side for their own egos and childish self important outcomes puts the tin hat on it.

T2C asked on his Twitter, how can a few transient unqualified people take such an important decision and undo the 20 year work of so many (imagine the response of the likes of RL today), while going against their own membership, and he is right. The hubris is beyond belief. As it can't be undone, if there is to be any natural justice it certainly needs consequences for those individuals, so they get no benefits for their selfish disregard. I would urge people to join the trust, just to remove them.

That's a great post, big effort to get a thousand or more to join and get these incumbents out, they've no doubt got plenty of supporters in the membership that'll hang on their every word, so the more that join the better to shift the lot of them and quickly, strong vote of no confidence and they'll have no choice, other than to clear their desks.