Trust to get £6m windfall in share dividend payout!

[PSumbler]

That last paragraph is interesting Phil, and I think there's stuff going on behind the scenes that the Trust Board are choosing, wrongly in my view, to keep to themselves.
I am concerned at the absence of information on the progress on legal action or, if in parallel, there are talks going on and we are holding back because of that, then FFS tell us.
I wrote to the Trust about this lack of progress and was surprised and disappointed at the response that I received. I'm not going to share it but it gave me absolutely no confidence that this will come to fruition.
It's pathetic

You should share the response.

Would certainly be interesting to understand the gist of it even if you weren't prepared to share it in its entirety

Whether its fuelled by this debate but a similar question was asked on the members Facebook page today

 

[Darran]

Silence is always a concern of some level

Given where we were back in the summer I thought certainly by now then things would have progressed further than they appear to have done

That's not to say there is anything concerning but I wonder if we have regressed back to being in the position where the "opposition" are trying ti take advantage of the loss of the old guard at the Trust and testing the waters with some of the newer guard to see if they break easier

That last paragraph is interesting Phil, and I think there's stuff going on behind the scenes that the Trust Board are choosing, wrongly in my view, to keep to themselves.
I am concerned at the absence of information on the progress on legal action or, if in parallel, there are talks going on and we are holding back because of that, then FFS tell us.
I wrote to the Trust about this lack of progress and was surprised and disappointed at the response that I received. I'm not going to share it but it gave me absolutely no confidence that this will come to fruition.
It's pathetic

Don’t be a ponce,share it.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

You should share the response.

Would certainly be interesting to understand the gist of it even if you weren't prepared to share it in its entirety

Whether its fuelled by this debate but a similar question was asked on the members Facebook page today

Do you have a link to that page please? I didn't know there was one.

 

[PSumbler]

Would certainly be interesting to understand the gist of it even if you weren't prepared to share it in its entirety

Whether its fuelled by this debate but a similar question was asked on the members Facebook page today

Do you have a link to that page please? I didn't know there was one.

I do indeed

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Trustmembers

 

[monmouth]

I know this is potentially harsh, and the answer is “if you feel like that get involved”, but I no longer have any conviction that some of the members of the Trust board are really in it to carry out the wishes of the members and not for their own personal ‘I’m so important’ egos. When Phil, Andrew C and Lisa were players I had a lot more confidence that we had a board that wouldn’t kowtow for their own purposes. Again maybe very harsh but, in my experience, retired schoolteachers and the like, or retired any bodies, are the bane of all Welsh committees. Often jumped up nobodies on an ego trip. Obviously generalising here, not talking about any specific individuals. Exceptions prove rules and all that. After all though, win the court case and there is no Trust board to brag to your mates about and get you seats in the directors box. I’d really like someone to say ‘you’re wrong and here’s the actual proof by action not words’.

I’ll shut up now. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I fear a flat soggy bottom.

Is Lisa no longer involved, Monny?

Don't know mate. I hope so, and she has some influence with the new board and the strategy. I'd thought she stood down, but I was mixing it up with Dai.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Could the trust be stalling until they meet the Americans face to face?

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/russell-martin-reveals-what-swansea-22372220

 

[Dewi1jack]

I'm struggling to grasp how this Resloven geezer thinks the club is going to make £5m a year over the next 10 years whilst remaining in the Championship! :lol:

I’m amazed The Trust hasn’t complained about his lies and misinformation and then taken legal action if it continued.
It’s another weakness from The Trust.

There’s clearly a reason he wasn’t on there when Phil was running it and that’s because he’d have been banned for peddling lies and misinformation.

I've kept asking the no mark to explain how the club has to pay out.
Kept belittling him/her/maybe/ fluid/trans/whateverthefuk in an attempt to get the village idiot to back up his bs.

Finally run out of crayons as Resolven has eaten them all

 

[Dewi1jack]

I know this is potentially harsh, and the answer is “if you feel like that get involved”, but I no longer have any conviction that some of the members of the Trust board are really in it to carry out the wishes of the members and not for their own personal ‘I’m so important’ egos. When Phil, Andrew C and Lisa were players I had a lot more confidence that we had a board that wouldn’t kowtow for their own purposes. Again maybe very harsh but, in my experience, retired schoolteachers and the like, or retired any bodies, are the bane of all Welsh committees. Often jumped up nobodies on an ego trip. Obviously generalising here, not talking about any specific individuals. Exceptions prove rules and all that. After all though, win the court case and there is no Trust board to brag to your mates about and get you seats in the directors box. I’d really like someone to say ‘you’re wrong and here’s the actual proof by action not words’.

I’ll shut up now. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I fear a flat soggy bottom.

Had many debates on the forum with those you mention.
Some things there was no chance of us ever seeing eye to eye (1st vote for legal and how it was written for one) but fair play to PS, I never got a ban because of it.
Yes, some of the original 200+ of us that voted for legal, were only doing it out of spite/ jealousy etc. The high majority could see the problem that may (and has) occur (occurred)
Probably no ban because there was no abuse flying. Or BS/ made up bollox. Just honest, points of view
And fair play to all of those I did debate with, they'd look at where I was coming from and try and explain their points of view that opposed mine. Neither side having bad feelings (or I hope not!)

Like yourself, I'm not filled with confidence in the Trust board as it now stands.
Communication has become worse than when I was laying into Phil et al on poor/ no communication.

Yes, I understand some things can't be made public until a court hears it, but I have the gnawing thought that some of the board maybe trying to push a deal through with the people who have wronged the fanbase and the Trust. There does seem to be some ego at play.
I hope my gut is wrong, as I do think a lot of the Trust members will just pull the plug on being members.
And wouldn't the likes of dimwit/shagger/beaky/van clog and our new owners adore that.

We were held up as an example of being the perfect fanbase in the Houses of Parliament.
Not bad for a club that had also had an outing or two to London for the High Court.
The wrong decisions because of ego now, would have a major, negative impact on our club and how we perceive it.
Amazing though, I'm 99.9% sure that the likes of ResolvenDick, aren't and have never been members of the Trust, but want those of us who are, to ask questions only they want answers to. For us to slag the membership we believe in.
I wish them well in life, but also wish they'd just have sex and travel


I have no problem with our present owners.
Businesses get bought and sold all the time. That's business!
The worst culprit is Judas Dimwit as he led the Trust and decided to keep his gob shut on the deal, when he should have railed against silence.

 

[PSumbler]

I know this is potentially harsh, and the answer is “if you feel like that get involved”, but I no longer have any conviction that some of the members of the Trust board are really in it to carry out the wishes of the members and not for their own personal ‘I’m so important’ egos. When Phil, Andrew C and Lisa were players I had a lot more confidence that we had a board that wouldn’t kowtow for their own purposes. Again maybe very harsh but, in my experience, retired schoolteachers and the like, or retired any bodies, are the bane of all Welsh committees. Often jumped up nobodies on an ego trip. Obviously generalising here, not talking about any specific individuals. Exceptions prove rules and all that. After all though, win the court case and there is no Trust board to brag to your mates about and get you seats in the directors box. I’d really like someone to say ‘you’re wrong and here’s the actual proof by action not words’.

I’ll shut up now. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I fear a flat soggy bottom.

Had many debates on the forum with those you mention.
Some things there was no chance of us ever seeing eye to eye (1st vote for legal and how it was written for one) but fair play to PS, I never got a ban because of it.
Yes, some of the original 200+ of us that voted for legal, were only doing it out of spite/ jealousy etc. The high majority could see the problem that may (and has) occur (occurred)
Probably no ban because there was no abuse flying. Or BS/ made up bollox. Just honest, points of view
And fair play to all of those I did debate with, they'd look at where I was coming from and try and explain their points of view that opposed mine. Neither side having bad feelings (or I hope not!)

Like yourself, I'm not filled with confidence in the Trust board as it now stands.
Communication has become worse than when I was laying into Phil et al on poor/ no communication.

Yes, I understand some things can't be made public until a court hears it, but I have the gnawing thought that some of the board maybe trying to push a deal through with the people who have wronged the fanbase and the Trust. There does seem to be some ego at play.
I hope my gut is wrong, as I do think a lot of the Trust members will just pull the plug on being members.
And wouldn't the likes of dimwit/shagger/beaky/van clog and our new owners adore that.

We were held up as an example of being the perfect fanbase in the Houses of Parliament.
Not bad for a club that had also had an outing or two to London for the High Court.
The wrong decisions because of ego now, would have a major, negative impact on our club and how we perceive it.
Amazing though, I'm 99.9% sure that the likes of ResolvenDick, aren't and have never been members of the Trust, but want those of us who are, to ask questions only they want answers to. For us to slag the membership we believe in.
I wish them well in life, but also wish they'd just have sex and travel


I have no problem with our present owners.
Businesses get bought and sold all the time. That's business!
The worst culprit is Judas Dimwit as he led the Trust and decided to keep his gob shut on the deal, when he should have railed against silence.

I will say now that never was anybody banned from Planet Swans - either here or when I ran it on fansnetwork - for having a differing point of view to that stance taken from the Trust.

There were a couple of bans issued for other reasons which those involved liked to believe it was for differing but failed to see the point that - as CHair - I stood in front of members who could give that view so I couldnt exactly shut it down online

The reason that some didnt post when it was PS but do now is a matter for them to decide but it won't be because it was different to the party line - if it was then as you referenced you would have been banned for your viewpoint - and you werent

The non legal action on day 1 was the "least worst option" at that stage - the moment the Americans tried to change the terms of that offer (in my mind) there was only one way to go and the board followed that during my last 2 years there and certainly the first year since I left. I don'tknow if that is still the case but I would assume if it wasn't it can only be at the request of the members who would surely have to vote again

As for Resloven I think we can all assume that he/she is very close to someone within the original shareholders, its probably a question of which family more than anything

 

[Dewi1jack]

Had many debates on the forum with those you mention.
Some things there was no chance of us ever seeing eye to eye (1st vote for legal and how it was written for one) but fair play to PS, I never got a ban because of it.
Yes, some of the original 200+ of us that voted for legal, were only doing it out of spite/ jealousy etc. The high majority could see the problem that may (and has) occur (occurred)
Probably no ban because there was no abuse flying. Or BS/ made up bollox. Just honest, points of view
And fair play to all of those I did debate with, they'd look at where I was coming from and try and explain their points of view that opposed mine. Neither side having bad feelings (or I hope not!)

Like yourself, I'm not filled with confidence in the Trust board as it now stands.
Communication has become worse than when I was laying into Phil et al on poor/ no communication.

Yes, I understand some things can't be made public until a court hears it, but I have the gnawing thought that some of the board maybe trying to push a deal through with the people who have wronged the fanbase and the Trust. There does seem to be some ego at play.
I hope my gut is wrong, as I do think a lot of the Trust members will just pull the plug on being members.
And wouldn't the likes of dimwit/shagger/beaky/van clog and our new owners adore that.

We were held up as an example of being the perfect fanbase in the Houses of Parliament.
Not bad for a club that had also had an outing or two to London for the High Court.
The wrong decisions because of ego now, would have a major, negative impact on our club and how we perceive it.
Amazing though, I'm 99.9% sure that the likes of ResolvenDick, aren't and have never been members of the Trust, but want those of us who are, to ask questions only they want answers to. For us to slag the membership we believe in.
I wish them well in life, but also wish they'd just have sex and travel


I have no problem with our present owners.
Businesses get bought and sold all the time. That's business!
The worst culprit is Judas Dimwit as he led the Trust and decided to keep his gob shut on the deal, when he should have railed against silence.

I will say now that never was anybody banned from Planet Swans - either here or when I ran it on fansnetwork - for having a differing point of view to that stance taken from the Trust.

There were a couple of bans issued for other reasons which those involved liked to believe it was for differing but failed to see the point that - as CHair - I stood in front of members who could give that view so I couldnt exactly shut it down online

The reason that some didnt post when it was PS but do now is a matter for them to decide but it won't be because it was different to the party line - if it was then as you referenced you would have been banned for your viewpoint - and you werent

The non legal action on day 1 was the "least worst option" at that stage - the moment the Americans tried to change the terms of that offer (in my mind) there was only one way to go and the board followed that during my last 2 years there and certainly the first year since I left. I don'tknow if that is still the case but I would assume if it wasn't it can only be at the request of the members who would surely have to vote again

As for Resloven I think we can all assume that he/she is very close to someone within the original shareholders, its probably a question of which family more than anything

As I said, many times we had differing viewpoints and at no time was I even threatened with a ban.
But then again, I never resorted to personal insults just to try and put my point over, nor did I get any back from any of the Trust board.
If I had used name calling, I would have deserved a ban, just for being a muppet!

Resolven won't answer the question (asked numerous times) of why he/she is pushing his/hers agenda, who he/she is close to, or back up any of the views put out as ""FACT" with anything.

If my grandkids get crayons for Xmas, I'll ask her to keep the broken ones in case Resolven gets the midnight munchies

 

[Darran]

Regardless of what side you’re on Resloven has posted many lies and misinformation to confuse fans about the Trust and legal case.
It’s nothing to do with banning someone for having a difference of opinion it’s about nipping it in the bud when a legal case is in the pipeline.
There’s obviously a reason he wasn’t on there when the likes of myself,Cudey,Phil,Monny,Uxbridge were regulars on there.

 

[Garyjack]

Had many debates on the forum with those you mention.
Some things there was no chance of us ever seeing eye to eye (1st vote for legal and how it was written for one) but fair play to PS, I never got a ban because of it.
Yes, some of the original 200+ of us that voted for legal, were only doing it out of spite/ jealousy etc. The high majority could see the problem that may (and has) occur (occurred)
Probably no ban because there was no abuse flying. Or BS/ made up bollox. Just honest, points of view
And fair play to all of those I did debate with, they'd look at where I was coming from and try and explain their points of view that opposed mine. Neither side having bad feelings (or I hope not!)

Like yourself, I'm not filled with confidence in the Trust board as it now stands.
Communication has become worse than when I was laying into Phil et al on poor/ no communication.

Yes, I understand some things can't be made public until a court hears it, but I have the gnawing thought that some of the board maybe trying to push a deal through with the people who have wronged the fanbase and the Trust. There does seem to be some ego at play.
I hope my gut is wrong, as I do think a lot of the Trust members will just pull the plug on being members.
And wouldn't the likes of dimwit/shagger/beaky/van clog and our new owners adore that.

We were held up as an example of being the perfect fanbase in the Houses of Parliament.
Not bad for a club that had also had an outing or two to London for the High Court.
The wrong decisions because of ego now, would have a major, negative impact on our club and how we perceive it.
Amazing though, I'm 99.9% sure that the likes of ResolvenDick, aren't and have never been members of the Trust, but want those of us who are, to ask questions only they want answers to. For us to slag the membership we believe in.
I wish them well in life, but also wish they'd just have sex and travel


I have no problem with our present owners.
Businesses get bought and sold all the time. That's business!
The worst culprit is Judas Dimwit as he led the Trust and decided to keep his gob shut on the deal, when he should have railed against silence.

I will say now that never was anybody banned from Planet Swans - either here or when I ran it on fansnetwork - for having a differing point of view to that stance taken from the Trust.

There were a couple of bans issued for other reasons which those involved liked to believe it was for differing but failed to see the point that - as CHair - I stood in front of members who could give that view so I couldnt exactly shut it down online

The reason that some didnt post when it was PS but do now is a matter for them to decide but it won't be because it was different to the party line - if it was then as you referenced you would have been banned for your viewpoint - and you werent

The non legal action on day 1 was the "least worst option" at that stage - the moment the Americans tried to change the terms of that offer (in my mind) there was only one way to go and the board followed that during my last 2 years there and certainly the first year since I left. I don'tknow if that is still the case but I would assume if it wasn't it can only be at the request of the members who would surely have to vote again

As for Resloven I think we can all assume that he/she is very close to someone within the original shareholders, its probably a question of which family more than anything

Phil, i remember reading from you at about the time you stepped down, that you would continue to oversee or be involved in the case through to it's conclusion. m i right in assuming this is no longer the case? And if so, are you able tell us why not?

 

[Garyjack]

Regardless of what side you’re on Resloven has posted many lies and misinformation to confuse fans about the Trust and legal case.
It’s nothing to do with banning someone for having a difference of opinion it’s about nipping it in the bud when a legal case is in the pipeline.
There’s obviously a reason he wasn’t on there when the likes of myself,Cudey,Phil,Monny,Uxbridge were regulars on there.

Apparently he was on SCFC2, and was banned from there under various different usernames. Keith is aware of this, so i'm at a loss as to why he hasn't done the same for the reasons you've stated!

 

[JackSomething]

Regardless of what side you’re on Resloven has posted many lies and misinformation to confuse fans about the Trust and legal case.
It’s nothing to do with banning someone for having a difference of opinion it’s about nipping it in the bud when a legal case is in the pipeline.
There’s obviously a reason he wasn’t on there when the likes of myself,Cudey,Phil,Monny,Uxbridge were regulars on there.

Apparently he was on SCFC2, and was banned from there under various different usernames. Keith is aware of this, so i'm at a loss as to why he hasn't done the same for the reasons you've stated!

It seems to me that there's an obvious reason for that and I'm not going to criticise Keith for it given his well-publicised reasons for running the site.

 

[Darran]

Regardless of what side you’re on Resloven has posted many lies and misinformation to confuse fans about the Trust and legal case.
It’s nothing to do with banning someone for having a difference of opinion it’s about nipping it in the bud when a legal case is in the pipeline.
There’s obviously a reason he wasn’t on there when the likes of myself,Cudey,Phil,Monny,Uxbridge were regulars on there.

Apparently he was on SCFC2, and was banned from there under various different usernames. Keith is aware of this, so i'm at a loss as to why he hasn't done the same for the reasons you've stated!

Yeah it’s very poor,if there wasn’t a court case ahead no problem but there is and it should have been stopped as soon as it became clear what was happening.