Trust Legal Action Called Off

[Swanjaxs]

Basically the Trust is a dead man walking now, any crumb of credibility it still had has evaporated, time to scrap it and start afresh.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I feel now is a good time to remind everyone that I resigned from my position as a consultant / affiliate to THIS trust board around 4 months ago.

I am doing so to make absolutely certain that absolutely no one thinks that this is in anyway anything that I have supported or been involved with since the Trust board never saw fit to make it public that I’d resigned.

It’s also a good time to remind people that Andy Godden resigned from his advisory position to the sub group at the same time. We have no idea whether the sub group continued in any form after we left.

I can only apologise to everyone who is angry and hurt for being ultimately unable to influence the decision makers.

I was a firm believer in the Trust. I still believe that ultimately legislation will be brought in to ensure that clubs that are such a vital part of our communities are protected from those who will never understand.

However, I will be resigning from my Trust membership in due course. I can’t speak for Andy on that.

I'd probably add here that under the "old" board I was involved on an advisory group - it was deemed by this years board that service was not neededbut with you and Andy involved I was angered to not even be given the courtesy of an explanation but comforted that two people would be thereto drive itthrough

However, the fact that the two of you left said it all for me about where this was heading and unfortunately I cannot see much logic in remaining a member other than I want to attend both this evening and Thursday largely because I want to ensure that the likes of you, Andy, Cudey, me and others who worked for the interests of the members and the organisation (and not ourselves) are not represented in any way - I certainly would not put it beyond certain members to do that.

Thank you for what you did for us as (likely former) members

I didn’t mention you or Cudey Phil as I hadn’t spoken with you. Apologies.

I would also mention perhaps that Dai Little was available for consultation and was not consulted. I’m sure he would not want his name associated with this either.
Very very sad.

None of us did this for praise. We did it because we genuinely believed in the Trust. I am absolutely gutted by what has happened.

 

[J_B]

They should put their decision to the members. I accept that it's too late to change the decision now but the membership should be allowed a vote on whether it was the right and acceptable decision. If the membership back the decision then fine but if the membership vote against it the entire board should resign.
A new board couldn't change it but at least the board members who have betrayed the membership would be out and not enjoying prawn sandwiches in the club boardroom.

 

[Jackfath]

Can the members call for a vote of no confidence in all current board members? What an utter disgrace they are doing this behind peoples backs. Isn't this exactly why legal action was voted for in the first place? Have they no shame?

 

[Londonlisa2001]

I feel now is a good time to remind everyone that I resigned from my position as a consultant / affiliate to THIS trust board around 4 months ago.

I am doing so to make absolutely certain that absolutely no one thinks that this is in anyway anything that I have supported or been involved with since the Trust board never saw fit to make it public that I’d resigned.

It’s also a good time to remind people that Andy Godden resigned from his advisory position to the sub group at the same time. We have no idea whether the sub group continued in any form after we left.

I can only apologise to everyone who is angry and hurt for being ultimately unable to influence the decision makers.

I was a firm believer in the Trust. I still believe that ultimately legislation will be brought in to ensure that clubs that are such a vital part of our communities are protected from those who will never understand.

However, I will be resigning from my Trust membership in due course. I can’t speak for Andy on that.

More than happy to corraborate Lisa's recollection of events. When I agreed to stay involved after my tenure ended, things didn't exact pan out as I would have hoped, whether by accident or design.

I'll see what's said later tonight, but a couple of things really stand out:
a) Does the Trust actually have a confirmation that Silverstein et all will convert their loan? The statement doesn't seem to be definitive on that. If not, it seems to have been used as leverage.
b) Can the Trust sell its 5% if it wants to? If not, is that actually a desirable position?

Lisa's the expert on the more technical aspects of what we needed, and why, but I hope the holes have been filled in. Difficult to comment further without knowing more about the agreement.

The problem with ‘holes’ is filling them in without being able to recognise them in the first place.

There are about 20 things I can instantly see as real issues.

But it’s too late.

 

[JoshTheJack]

They've basically acted in the same way as our previous and current owners.Cracked on with what they wanted and fuck everyone else.
Self serving wankers.How can you justify this without even speaking to members fucking spineless.

 

[Darran]

They've basically acted in the same way as our previous and current owners.Cracked on with what they wanted and f**k everyone else.
Self serving w******s.How can you justify this without even speaking to members f*****g spineless.

Well said.

 

[Darran]

I wonder when we can expect the Dineen interview with Vincent or Wathan?

 

[Pacemaker]

I always felt that this was inevitable, I could not imagine a barrister accepting a brief where there was so little to gain against the potential significant cost to the trust.

This actual agreement seems to have achieved nothing other than leaving a bad taste in the mouth.

Those that have “negotiated” this agreement will have done nothing other than ensure the demise of the trust.

A sad day.

 

[3swan]

I always felt that this was inevitable, I could not imagine a barrister accepting a brief where there was so little to gain against the potential significant cost to the trust.

This actual agreement seems to have achieved nothing other than leaving a bad taste in the mouth.

Those that have “negotiated” this agreement will have done nothing other than ensure the demise of the trust.

A sad day.

Fully agree as I've already posted.

Not sure if anyone can answer this, to a very simple person.

If the loan is now taken as shares at today's value and the Trust drop from 21% to 15% holding.

Does that mean the current majority holders drop pro rata from 68% to 48%?

I know other shareholders will take a hit as well, but if now 48% plus voting rights does not now give them the equivalent 75% voting rights.

In short, if that makes some sense, is Silverstein now the holder of power, even though he will vote with the majority

 

[crazedbison]

I always felt that this was inevitable, I could not imagine a barrister accepting a brief where there was so little to gain against the potential significant cost to the trust.

This actual agreement seems to have achieved nothing other than leaving a bad taste in the mouth.

Those that have “negotiated” this agreement will have done nothing other than ensure the demise of the trust.

A sad day.

Fully agree as I've already posted.

Not sure if anyone can answer this, to a very simple person.

If the loan is now taken as shares at today's value and the Trust drop from 21% to 15% holding.

Does that mean the current majority holders drop pro rata from 68% to 48%?

I know other shareholders will take a hit as well, but if now 48% plus voting rights does not now give them the equivalent 75% voting rights.

In short, if that makes some sense, is Silverstein now the holder of power, even though he will vote with the majority

My understanding is the the current majority owners also loaned the club money, essentially matching Silverstein. I believe this is to avoid the “watering down” of their shares.

So, essentially, Silverstein is buying the 6% from the trust (plus whatever the majority shareholders or others are giving up) for the £5m he “loaned” the club.

The trust is just not receiving that money (only £500k) as they didn’t match the loan.

Someone in the know please correct me if I’m wrong, but the trust lost 6% of the club because we couldn’t temporarily match the other owners loans? The interest rates were favorable, so I don’t understand how we couldn’t have taken out a bank loan using the shares as collateral and the interest would have at least nullified one another.

Essentially, we just got leveraged out of 6% of the club.

 

[3swan]

Thanks

I thought he'd loaned £10m I forgot the comment about his input being matched.

 

[monmouth]

Still catching up as Lisa’s and Andy’s posts raised my blood pressure beyond safe levels but I infer that these events were set in train 4 months ago and yet there was ‘no time’ to consult the members to get a mandate to negotiate and to set out the impact of that? Nor time to put the proposal to the membership. I call bullshit.

Sound like a bunch of disingenuous self important numpties way out of their depth to me. I would bet the farm that the Americans have had them on toast.

 

[Niigata Jack]

I have just emailed the Trust and resigned my membership.

They won't give a tuppenny fuk mush, I've felt it for a long time that some of those on the board loved the fact they could go to games and sit where it would satisfy their own self importance, the wag the tail clown was a prime example.

The "I'm on the board of the Swansea City Trust" don't you know, I give more thought to the dog shit on the pavements, than I would them.

I'm gutted for Phil and the others who were there for the rights reason's.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

I always felt that this was inevitable, I could not imagine a barrister accepting a brief where there was so little to gain against the potential significant cost to the trust.

This actual agreement seems to have achieved nothing other than leaving a bad taste in the mouth.

Those that have “negotiated” this agreement will have done nothing other than ensure the demise of the trust.

A sad day.

Fully agree as I've already posted.

Not sure if anyone can answer this, to a very simple person.

If the loan is now taken as shares at today's value and the Trust drop from 21% to 15% holding.

Does that mean the current majority holders drop pro rata from 68% to 48%?

I know other shareholders will take a hit as well, but if now 48% plus voting rights does not now give them the equivalent 75% voting rights.

In short, if that makes some sense, is Silverstein now the holder of power, even though he will vote with the majority

Without knowing the full details of the loan - ie who's put in what amounts, I think it's impossible to say. Winter previously alluded to 'other shareholders' contributing so that could mean Morgan & Jenkins possibly not being diluted as much as they would have previously. We know Leveins block matched Silversteins loan so I don't think they'll be diluted at all. Essentially the trust as I understand it will feel the full brunt of the dilution.