| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? 14:47 - Aug 17 with 8061 views | Darran |
Now I know there were several people involved in the sale of the club to the Americans but apparently only one,Huw Jenkins went down the legal route of asking the Trust to rip up the Shareholders Agreement so to keep things simple I'm just going to use Huw Jenkins as the example.
Huw Jenkins verbally asks the Trust to rip up the Shareholders Agreement,then he makes it all official and his solicitor writes to the Trust asking them to rip up the Shareholders Agreement to smoothly push the sale through and the Trust refuses.
Then in the Fans Forum with the two American owners at the Liberty they state in front of everyone that Jenkins told them to keep everything quiet so the Trust wouldn't find out what was going on behind their backs.
So my question is how isn't it a criminal act when a Chairman of a multi-million pound company,any company acts like this?
What am I missing here because it's the one thing I can't get my head around? |  |
| |  |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:14 - Aug 17 with 1456 views | Swanzay |
Bravo  |  | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:26 - Aug 17 with 1430 views | thenorthbankbog |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:08 - Aug 17 by Swanzay |
That is a question ONLY the Trust can answer.....apart from HJ of course. [Post edited 17 Aug 2017 21:15]
|
I think the trust will only answer when Jenkins tells them they can. That fecker has got a grip on the trust hence why they getting bent over and dry bummed. |  | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:36 - Aug 17 with 1411 views | Swanzay |
Fair play Lisa and SHAKY tried their best to define the consequences of voting for option 1, shame no one listened.
Just highlights that in the grand scheme of SCFC this forum is miniscule. I've just had a quick glance at the other prominent SCFC message boards and it seems that in the main, the posters on there aint to bothered either way on the outcome, from what I have seen. Apart from a vocal few.
Well done Shaky:-
"If the case is strong, it is strong.
You should be shouting it from the rooftops to scare the bejesus out of the Americans and has them quivering in their boots, not bending over backwards to strike a deal that doesn't offend them and their delicate sensibilities in the slightest."
I rest my case | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:38 - Aug 17 with 1403 views | Meraki |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:36 - Aug 17 by Swanzay |
Fair play Lisa and SHAKY tried their best to define the consequences of voting for option 1, shame no one listened.
Just highlights that in the grand scheme of SCFC this forum is miniscule. I've just had a quick glance at the other prominent SCFC message boards and it seems that in the main, the posters on there aint to bothered either way on the outcome, from what I have seen. Apart from a vocal few.
Well done Shaky:-
"If the case is strong, it is strong.
You should be shouting it from the rooftops to scare the bejesus out of the Americans and has them quivering in their boots, not bending over backwards to strike a deal that doesn't offend them and their delicate sensibilities in the slightest."
I rest my case |
Apparently the Trust Chairman - told people at one of the consultations not to listen to people who Google stuff. (i.e. Shaky?)
Not sure how true that is. |  | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:45 - Aug 17 with 1391 views | Swanzay |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:38 - Aug 17 by Meraki |
Apparently the Trust Chairman - told people at one of the consultations not to listen to people who Google stuff. (i.e. Shaky?)
Not sure how true that is. |
Well they also "ignored/discouraged" the advice of a solicitor that they paid £30k for to review the case.
Simply why? | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:55 - Aug 17 with 1368 views | max936 |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 18:40 - Aug 17 by Wingstandwood |
Bang on! And you no doubt know that (I've heard it!) many people are saying and thinking "What have the sell-outs and Yanks got on the Trust" for the Trust to recommend a deal like that in the first place. After all it does rather seem to go against Trust ethos/ideology and very reason for its existence in the first place.
Was there a ‘silver-bullet’ that they (the sell-outs and Yanks) could magically pull out of the hat when required in a courtroom?...... Something to completely destroy the Trusts case and credibility?
Did some people know about the whole torrid affair/sell-out deal all the time but decided to say f#ck all? The Huw Cooze affair alone really looked like major spanner in the works stuff? Too cosy (beyond sane comprehension) hey? Apparently he was betrayed in the most disgusting and disgraceful of ways but still drank in the worst possible place imaginable. [Post edited 17 Aug 2017 18:44]
|
For this deal to have a caveat saying that with this deal it is agreed that no legal pursuit will take place, suggest that the Yanks/Jenkins etc had a good idea that they could/would lose, yet they still got away with this deal, which ever way you look at it is not a good deal at all, plenty on here with far far more knowledge about these sort of deals have made comments to that effect, so why the vote to accept, the threat of legal action would have probably led to all getting around the table and thrashing out a deal that we probably all could live with, that threat and any chance of a better deal is now gone. |  |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:06 - Aug 17 with 1342 views | longlostjack |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:55 - Aug 17 by max936 |
For this deal to have a caveat saying that with this deal it is agreed that no legal pursuit will take place, suggest that the Yanks/Jenkins etc had a good idea that they could/would lose, yet they still got away with this deal, which ever way you look at it is not a good deal at all, plenty on here with far far more knowledge about these sort of deals have made comments to that effect, so why the vote to accept, the threat of legal action would have probably led to all getting around the table and thrashing out a deal that we probably all could live with, that threat and any chance of a better deal is now gone. |
Why the hell was it a vote for legal action or not. The question should have been:
Do you mandate the Trust to take legal action if it is deemed by the Board that no satisfactory deal has been reached by (date).
The whole thing stinks. |  |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:09 - Aug 17 with 1332 views | max936 |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:06 - Aug 17 by longlostjack |
Why the hell was it a vote for legal action or not. The question should have been:
Do you mandate the Trust to take legal action if it is deemed by the Board that no satisfactory deal has been reached by (date).
The whole thing stinks. |
I emailed the Trust asking why there wasn't a third option of a similar nature to your suggestion, I never received a reply!! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:14 - Aug 17 with 1316 views | Swanzay |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:06 - Aug 17 by longlostjack |
Why the hell was it a vote for legal action or not. The question should have been:
Do you mandate the Trust to take legal action if it is deemed by the Board that no satisfactory deal has been reached by (date).
The whole thing stinks. |
We have to accept the vote results, as I said previously gauging the reviews on the other forums, todays result gets very little mention compared to here.
To me this highlights that most Swans fan are not interested on the ongoings/workings of the club, just Premiership football. If that goes so will they....
Only a 51% turn out of vote of a membership of under 2000 speaks volumes... | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:28 - Aug 17 with 1289 views | longlostjack |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:14 - Aug 17 by Swanzay |
We have to accept the vote results, as I said previously gauging the reviews on the other forums, todays result gets very little mention compared to here.
To me this highlights that most Swans fan are not interested on the ongoings/workings of the club, just Premiership football. If that goes so will they....
Only a 51% turn out of vote of a membership of under 2000 speaks volumes... |
Aye but if the question was phrased along the lines of " do you mandate the Trust to take legal action in the event of ....? " you'd have had a completely different result - admittedly with a similar lousy turnout probably. [Post edited 17 Aug 2017 22:30]
| |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:30 - Aug 17 with 1279 views | EasternJack |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 21:10 - Aug 17 by Darran |
And whilst we're at there's two posters on here that have said more than once that I was always behind Jenkins. If anyone would like to show any proof of that I'll stop posting. |
I think you're right Darran. However you have been vocally supportive and protective of the Trust and in particicular key people on the board. I'm not trying to insult or wind you up here.
Can you now see that these guys have not acted independently or in the interest of its membership in protecticing the group's rights (and the value of our shares)? More than that, they've actively gone out of their way to protect the old board members. |  |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:30 - Aug 17 with 1279 views | jesushchrist |
I was just wondering if Darran still thinks the sun shines out of Sumblers ass? | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:40 - Aug 17 with 1259 views | Swanzay |
Darran has never supported HJ in recent years, even I can say that about my chum! | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:46 - Aug 17 with 1249 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:30 - Aug 17 by EasternJack |
I think you're right Darran. However you have been vocally supportive and protective of the Trust and in particicular key people on the board. I'm not trying to insult or wind you up here.
Can you now see that these guys have not acted independently or in the interest of its membership in protecticing the group's rights (and the value of our shares)? More than that, they've actively gone out of their way to protect the old board members. |
Well yes I can but I see no reason to protect old board members. I still don't understand why we didn't go down the criminal road though. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:48 - Aug 17 with 1245 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:30 - Aug 17 by jesushchrist |
I was just wondering if Darran still thinks the sun shines out of Sumblers ass? |
Of course I do he's my friend,he's a top fella and regardless of today's result I still life him. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:51 - Aug 17 with 1237 views | Darran |
Being serious though one thing that angers me as much as Jenkins getting off with a free pass is the amount of moaning çunts on here that aren't members who couldn't vote and the other lazy fuçkers who were members that couldn't be arsed to vote. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:54 - Aug 17 with 1234 views | Swanzay |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:46 - Aug 17 by Darran |
Well yes I can but I see no reason to protect old board members. I still don't understand why we didn't go down the criminal road though. |
The Trust did FA at the time and basically bent over.
Because the Trust held a vote and todays result was to go for bending over again (Option 1)
The Trust could have taken legal proceeding, but for reasons only known to them and will probably never be known were hell bent on option 1.
Now option 1 will be activated we will never know, because the clause of no further legal action will be taken at any time or detail as to why...
Its that simple, sadly. | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:57 - Aug 17 with 1220 views | Garyjack |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 18:17 - Aug 17 by Wingstandwood |
I've donated a little over £1,000+ to SCST since it started, was an uber-loyalist, sadly today I've have deceided to leave.
It's a toothless, ineffectual, wimpish 'hand-in-glove' patsy organisation not worth paying even a single Penny for a years membership!.......The utterly shameful Huw Cooze affair (is that traitor-scumbag still drinking down traitor H.Q Morgans?) really put me in the picture, i.e. thats the calibre of some of the (hidden motive(s)/hidden adgenda) self serving scumbag filth and lowlife sh#t that has 'infiltrated' it at times. |
Sorry. i up arrowed by mistake but put it right. Huw Cooze is not the problem here for me. |  | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:01 - Aug 17 with 1214 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:54 - Aug 17 by Swanzay |
The Trust did FA at the time and basically bent over.
Because the Trust held a vote and todays result was to go for bending over again (Option 1)
The Trust could have taken legal proceeding, but for reasons only known to them and will probably never be known were hell bent on option 1.
Now option 1 will be activated we will never know, because the clause of no further legal action will be taken at any time or detail as to why...
Its that simple, sadly. |
I'm still not getting something and my mind is working overtime xmas_bollack posted above.
If there was fraud involved why didn't the QC advise early on to call in the authorities?
Why is xmas mentioning the SHA? I want to know who clearly hadn't signed it. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:02 - Aug 17 with 1212 views | jesushchrist |
Anyone with half a Brain can see the trust has been as much use as a chocolate fire guard for the past 5 years. | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:02 - Aug 17 with 1212 views | EasternJack |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:46 - Aug 17 by Darran |
Well yes I can but I see no reason to protect old board members. I still don't understand why we didn't go down the criminal road though. |
The way I see it is that everyone went into this with the best intentions. Inevitably the supporter and amateur roots meant that there was always going to be strong personal connections maintained across the shareholders. Inevitably some of these relationships likely became blurred and started to affect the independence of the Trust (HC is a proven example)
This was all broadly harmless when we were in League 2. As soon as we became a £100M company the same amateurism and blurred relationships at shareholder level started to cause friction as motivations changed. i feel that key members of the trust failed to adapt to the new world and these personal relationships were taken advantage of by other shareholders.
I think these same legacy key relationships have stopped the trust from being truly objective when deadline with key decisions over the past 18 months. | |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:09 - Aug 17 with 1199 views | Darran |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:02 - Aug 17 by EasternJack |
The way I see it is that everyone went into this with the best intentions. Inevitably the supporter and amateur roots meant that there was always going to be strong personal connections maintained across the shareholders. Inevitably some of these relationships likely became blurred and started to affect the independence of the Trust (HC is a proven example)
This was all broadly harmless when we were in League 2. As soon as we became a £100M company the same amateurism and blurred relationships at shareholder level started to cause friction as motivations changed. i feel that key members of the trust failed to adapt to the new world and these personal relationships were taken advantage of by other shareholders.
I think these same legacy key relationships have stopped the trust from being truly objective when deadline with key decisions over the past 18 months. |
This is my last post on this for tonight but there's more to this story to come out in my opinion.
xmas tree is either one of them or a close associate and I'd like to know more about what he/she has said about the signing of the SHA. [Post edited 17 Aug 2017 23:10]
| |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:10 - Aug 17 with 1198 views | swancity |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 22:54 - Aug 17 by Swanzay |
The Trust did FA at the time and basically bent over.
Because the Trust held a vote and todays result was to go for bending over again (Option 1)
The Trust could have taken legal proceeding, but for reasons only known to them and will probably never be known were hell bent on option 1.
Now option 1 will be activated we will never know, because the clause of no further legal action will be taken at any time or detail as to why...
Its that simple, sadly. |
Exactly. And as a result the likes of Jenkins Dineen and Morgan will no doubt be celebrating over a glass of their finest Moët Chandon. When they should now be cacking their knickers.
Isn't it rather strange that Uxbridge was writing books on this subject, insisting that there was no merit in legal action and is nowhere to be seen now that the results are in? Holidays? Do me a favour. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:13 - Aug 17 with 1184 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:09 - Aug 17 by Darran |
This is my last post on this for tonight but there's more to this story to come out in my opinion.
xmas tree is either one of them or a close associate and I'd like to know more about what he/she has said about the signing of the SHA. [Post edited 17 Aug 2017 23:10]
|
There were always rumours floating around that it wasn't signed by everyone,
The reality is, under English law it makes no difference. | | | |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:14 - Aug 17 with 1184 views | Swanzay |
| Could someone explain something in laymans terms about the Sellout to me please? on 23:01 - Aug 17 by Darran |
I'm still not getting something and my mind is working overtime xmas_bollack posted above.
If there was fraud involved why didn't the QC advise early on to call in the authorities?
Why is xmas mentioning the SHA? I want to know who clearly hadn't signed it. |
As Lisa said earlier, IF the victim didn't ask to press charges, no one else can, the Trust simply did f all. A cluster feck of inaction.
Xmastree is talking bollux, we both that! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
