By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It was mentioned the other day Phil running the site and being on the trust was a conflict of interest. I can't find any response by E20 after alleging there was. Probably me. Is there a link ?
Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk.
Conflict of interest on 23:24 - Feb 22 by londonlisa2001
I’m not sure why any fan would be against Trust aims if you read them. They were posted above.
Keeping a football team in Swansea and attempting to ensure supporters have as strong a say as possible in the way the club is run to aim to prevent the club ever again coming close to extinction seems something that any fan would support as far as I can see. There may be disagreements as to tactics or the ways of achieving that, but if people are fundamentally against Trust aims then they are strange fans,
As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it.
Because not all aims and ideologies are listed. The ones that are however are extremely outdated and held the Trust back damaging the organisation already or not adhered to at all. The Trust aims also included more recently, the removing Huw Jenkins and attacking the board, also something most fans should be against.
I’m unsure of what you mean by the last paragraph. A bit like denying Nazi actions because some Jewish people survived. They attacked people they felt they could get away with attacking. You are not one of them. The ones attacked are representative of the attack, not the ones that weren’t.
[Post edited 22 Feb 2019 23:53]
0
Conflict of interest on 09:10 - Feb 23 with 1867 views
Because not all aims and ideologies are listed. The ones that are however are extremely outdated and held the Trust back damaging the organisation already or not adhered to at all. The Trust aims also included more recently, the removing Huw Jenkins and attacking the board, also something most fans should be against.
I’m unsure of what you mean by the last paragraph. A bit like denying Nazi actions because some Jewish people survived. They attacked people they felt they could get away with attacking. You are not one of them. The ones attacked are representative of the attack, not the ones that weren’t.
[Post edited 22 Feb 2019 23:53]
I think your last paragraph sums up your own ideology. To ECB, there is a very good reason why I regenerated this discussion. To E20, I will reply like I did agreeing with you in another thread.
It's just that I have more important things to do at the moment.
Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk.
Conflict of interest on 23:24 - Feb 22 by londonlisa2001
I’m not sure why any fan would be against Trust aims if you read them. They were posted above.
Keeping a football team in Swansea and attempting to ensure supporters have as strong a say as possible in the way the club is run to aim to prevent the club ever again coming close to extinction seems something that any fan would support as far as I can see. There may be disagreements as to tactics or the ways of achieving that, but if people are fundamentally against Trust aims then they are strange fans,
As for the ‘they silenced some who were against the deal but not me, because I was vociferously against it’ - yeah, that’s just nonsense when you think about it, isn’t it.
What happens if we go to court, win and the Americans buy the trust shares ?
That goes against aim 4 to start with and should it happen then aim 3 is lost and aims 2 and 5 are really non existent. All you have is a charitable organisation, with lots of money in the bank, which can't be spent unless they are allowed to buy back shares they sold.
1. To maintain a professional football club in Swansea; 2. To bring the football club closer to it’s local community; 3. To have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club; 4. To maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above; 5. To represent the needs and aims of our members at all times;
0
Conflict of interest on 09:33 - Feb 23 with 1852 views
I think your last paragraph sums up your own ideology. To ECB, there is a very good reason why I regenerated this discussion. To E20, I will reply like I did agreeing with you in another thread.
It's just that I have more important things to do at the moment.
Feel free to tell me what my ideology is.. you have made a few vague accusations over the last week or so, it would be nice to have you actually explain one.
Of course, you could just ask me. My ideology is to have a Trust that doesn’t think they ARE the Trust but temporary custodians, elected to carry out THE FANS wishes. Not try and manipulate the fans to carry out theirs. A Trust that is not full of their own self importance and personal interest that if mistakes get made they hold their hands up and not eat their own and publicly lie about it in order to cover their own glaring shortcomings.
As far as I’m concerned, the Trust are the owners of tomorrow, so why in God’s name wouldn’t we scrutinise immorality, lying, corruption and tyrannical abuse of power? It makes literally no sense that someone can jump up and down at the ex shareholders doing some of the above and then completely give the Trust a free pass doing the same things.
[Post edited 23 Feb 2019 9:36]
0
Conflict of interest on 10:07 - Feb 23 with 1831 views
Conflict of interest on 09:18 - Feb 23 by whitemountains
What happens if we go to court, win and the Americans buy the trust shares ?
That goes against aim 4 to start with and should it happen then aim 3 is lost and aims 2 and 5 are really non existent. All you have is a charitable organisation, with lots of money in the bank, which can't be spent unless they are allowed to buy back shares they sold.
1. To maintain a professional football club in Swansea; 2. To bring the football club closer to it’s local community; 3. To have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club; 4. To maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above; 5. To represent the needs and aims of our members at all times;
This issue really needs open discussion as legal proceedings are inevitable. We really need to be focused on the end game now .
0
Conflict of interest on 10:40 - Feb 23 with 1805 views
Conflict of interest on 09:18 - Feb 23 by whitemountains
What happens if we go to court, win and the Americans buy the trust shares ?
That goes against aim 4 to start with and should it happen then aim 3 is lost and aims 2 and 5 are really non existent. All you have is a charitable organisation, with lots of money in the bank, which can't be spent unless they are allowed to buy back shares they sold.
1. To maintain a professional football club in Swansea; 2. To bring the football club closer to it’s local community; 3. To have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club; 4. To maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above; 5. To represent the needs and aims of our members at all times;
But as E20 states. "The trust are the owners of tomorrow". So that £21m will come in very handy.
Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
1
Conflict of interest on 10:57 - Feb 23 with 1782 views
Conflict of interest on 10:40 - Feb 23 by builthjack
But as E20 states. "The trust are the owners of tomorrow". So that £21m will come in very handy.
But basically there will be no trust as all it will be is a charity with lots of money it can't spend unless the club goes t!ts up which none of us want ( maybe some do so the trust can have full ownership ) With no shares, no director on the board , no access to any information and no input ( granted limited at present) then there isn't really any point in the trust.
0
Conflict of interest on 11:41 - Feb 23 with 1755 views
Conflict of interest on 09:18 - Feb 23 by whitemountains
What happens if we go to court, win and the Americans buy the trust shares ?
That goes against aim 4 to start with and should it happen then aim 3 is lost and aims 2 and 5 are really non existent. All you have is a charitable organisation, with lots of money in the bank, which can't be spent unless they are allowed to buy back shares they sold.
1. To maintain a professional football club in Swansea; 2. To bring the football club closer to it’s local community; 3. To have elected representation on the Board of Swansea City Football Club; 4. To maintain and increase a stake in the club, in pursuance of the aims above; 5. To represent the needs and aims of our members at all times;
Where it is impossible to simultaneously achieve all aims, the first has to be paramount don’t you think? Otherwise it’s all a bit ridiculous.
But you are making a very simplistic assumption about options anyway which renders your point moot.
I do love the use of the word ‘we’ in the first sentence though. It made me laugh.
0
Conflict of interest on 11:42 - Feb 23 with 1752 views
Conflict of interest on 10:57 - Feb 23 by jasper_T
What if tomorrow never comes?
Is E20 ever wrong?
[Post edited 23 Feb 2019 11:44]
Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
0
Conflict of interest on 11:44 - Feb 23 with 1749 views
Conflict of interest on 10:59 - Feb 23 by whitemountains
But basically there will be no trust as all it will be is a charity with lots of money it can't spend unless the club goes t!ts up which none of us want ( maybe some do so the trust can have full ownership ) With no shares, no director on the board , no access to any information and no input ( granted limited at present) then there isn't really any point in the trust.
Again, your underlying assumption is incorrect.
0
Conflict of interest on 11:48 - Feb 23 with 1738 views
Conflict of interest on 10:59 - Feb 23 by whitemountains
But basically there will be no trust as all it will be is a charity with lots of money it can't spend unless the club goes t!ts up which none of us want ( maybe some do so the trust can have full ownership ) With no shares, no director on the board , no access to any information and no input ( granted limited at present) then there isn't really any point in the trust.
No, silly. There wouldn't still be a trust.
Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
0
Conflict of interest on 12:47 - Feb 23 with 1690 views
Conflict of interest on 10:40 - Feb 23 by builthjack
But as E20 states. "The trust are the owners of tomorrow". So that £21m will come in very handy.
Let’s not forget however that the Trust are only going after that £21m as a result of the Americans pulling out of a deal THE TRUST recommended to get about £4m after tax for the majority of those shares. How can we have people with that thinking leading this? If they had it their way the Trust would have a relative pittance and barely a share to its name.
Here’s one for you... If Huw Jenkins took over the Trust tomorrow, hypothetically of course, how many of you would start questioning these Trust issues? If he lied to the fans once, let alone multiple times there would be uproar. If he made these nonsensical decisions once there would be uproar. Yet if you question the current incumbents for similar behaviour it is some way a negative on our part? It’s bizarre.
0
Conflict of interest on 12:57 - Feb 23 with 1686 views
Let’s not forget however that the Trust are only going after that £21m as a result of the Americans pulling out of a deal THE TRUST recommended to get about £4m after tax for the majority of those shares. How can we have people with that thinking leading this? If they had it their way the Trust would have a relative pittance and barely a share to its name.
Here’s one for you... If Huw Jenkins took over the Trust tomorrow, hypothetically of course, how many of you would start questioning these Trust issues? If he lied to the fans once, let alone multiple times there would be uproar. If he made these nonsensical decisions once there would be uproar. Yet if you question the current incumbents for similar behaviour it is some way a negative on our part? It’s bizarre.
I disagreed with the deal as much as anyone.
However, your statements:
“£4m after tax for the majority of those shares.” and “the Trust...would have barely a share to its name”
are factually incorrect.
The price per share resulting in c. £5m (your statement re tax is also incorrect) was the same price as you have used to value the whole stake at £21m.
The deal was not appropriate for a number of reasons, but distorting the facts is unhelpful and, some may say, disingenuous.
0
Conflict of interest on 13:09 - Feb 23 with 1672 views
Conflict of interest on 10:28 - Feb 23 by donkonky
This issue really needs open discussion as legal proceedings are inevitable. We really need to be focused on the end game now .
The end game for me has been obvious for years and have said so openly. One in which only recently the Trust are waking up to, about a year ago Ux told me he isn’t even sure if that’s what the aim is, which is crazy.
We have to be real here. I have said many times about the pointless and never ending battles, one problem simply gets replaced with another often bigger one. I’m sure we will find that when Jenkins gets replaced. But more specifically the owners, who will they sell to realistically? Someone wanting to profit and invest as little as possible right? Who are they most likely to sell to? So on and so forth... each owner diminishing the club slightly more than the last as they attempt to target an area of profit.
Will it help by fighting these short term cyclical battles against owners and chairmen who will just be replaced with other unsuitable ones? Of course not. So how do we win the fight to win all fights? By getting as much for the shares as possible and leading a consortium as majority shareholders. Yet the Trust came within a gnats whiskey of throwing all that away, for what? A pittance.
So time is precious as is money. Yet criminal amounts of both have been wasted chasing shadows and fighting pointless battles. JVZ in the directors box ffs, getting Dineen away, Jenkins out... get your priorities right and have some damn vision.
So while some may be concentrating on the short term (again) and looking at the legal battle - the one that the current Trust chairman bent over backwards to ensure didn’t happen, I’m looking towards life after the legal battle. What have this Trust done to convince anybody they are the right ones to take this forward and into successful club ownership?
Have they been honest? No. Have they covered up secret payments? Yes. Did they lie about them? yes. Did they silence a load of fans who went against what THEY wanted to implement? Yes. Did they manipulate that vote for fans to carry out THEIR wishes? Yes Did they waste tens of thousands of members money on legal advice only to go against it? Yes. Did they almost bring the organisation to its knees with its stance on the deal? Yes. Are they continuing to lie regarding the circumstances surrounding Coozegate? Yes. Did they change rules to suit themselves regarding such things as term times? Yes Did the current chairman jump ship when the going got tough after the disaster deal he recommended was coming to fruition? Yes. Did he then come back when the coast was clear? Yes. Do they participate in online victimisation of posters on their unofficial affiliated website who speak out? Absolutely.
If Jenkins or our owners did any of the above, let alone all of them, there would be utter riots. We all know this is true.
0
Conflict of interest on 13:15 - Feb 23 with 1666 views
Conflict of interest on 12:57 - Feb 23 by londonlisa2001
I disagreed with the deal as much as anyone.
However, your statements:
“£4m after tax for the majority of those shares.” and “the Trust...would have barely a share to its name”
are factually incorrect.
The price per share resulting in c. £5m (your statement re tax is also incorrect) was the same price as you have used to value the whole stake at £21m.
The deal was not appropriate for a number of reasons, but distorting the facts is unhelpful and, some may say, disingenuous.
I’m being anything but disingenuous, I am not privy to the exact amount after tax. If it wasn’t around £4m after tax then feel free to correct me, can’t be far off. The rest was not guaranteed as was based on survival over a sustained period of time, something that was incredibly unlikely (understatement).
So £4m after tax (or happy to use your updated figure in lieu of the information) with it highly likely the rest would not be taken up, resulting in the remaining shares being pretty much unsaleable and massive decrease in residual value. Yes ok the “amount” of shares would be the same but 15% of nothing is a lot less than 5% of something. They would be next to worthless, as they are now. Can you imagine anyone buying a minority’s share in a club with huge financial burden?
£4m is peanuts to achieve the aims set out on page 1 and would almost certainly turn into white mountains scenario of a local Trust fund as the cash would be pretty much unusable.
[Post edited 23 Feb 2019 13:26]
0
Conflict of interest on 14:42 - Feb 23 with 1620 views
I’m being anything but disingenuous, I am not privy to the exact amount after tax. If it wasn’t around £4m after tax then feel free to correct me, can’t be far off. The rest was not guaranteed as was based on survival over a sustained period of time, something that was incredibly unlikely (understatement).
So £4m after tax (or happy to use your updated figure in lieu of the information) with it highly likely the rest would not be taken up, resulting in the remaining shares being pretty much unsaleable and massive decrease in residual value. Yes ok the “amount” of shares would be the same but 15% of nothing is a lot less than 5% of something. They would be next to worthless, as they are now. Can you imagine anyone buying a minority’s share in a club with huge financial burden?
£4m is peanuts to achieve the aims set out on page 1 and would almost certainly turn into white mountains scenario of a local Trust fund as the cash would be pretty much unusable.
[Post edited 23 Feb 2019 13:26]
From memory it was £5m for 5% of the shares immediately. The same price as the selling shareholders got in 2016. Any other share sale after that had strings attached to it. So nothing like the factually incorrect £4m for the majority of the trust’s shares as you wrongly stated.
And for the record, I voted against it as I said at the time.
Conflict of interest on 14:42 - Feb 23 by exiledclaseboy
From memory it was £5m for 5% of the shares immediately. The same price as the selling shareholders got in 2016. Any other share sale after that had strings attached to it. So nothing like the factually incorrect £4m for the majority of the trust’s shares as you wrongly stated.
And for the record, I voted against it as I said at the time.
Around £4m after tax is what I said. I stand by that until someone informs me otherwise.
I should have put “saleable” in front of shares then for the pedantic. £4m after tax is what the Trust would have at this point in time - plus some worthless and ubsaleable shares without any scope to take legal action.
Bend it however you like and play the word police - these are facts. If you think the Trust would have £4m after tax and a load of saleable shares left then I am seriously worried that you take a position on the board - that’s on top of already trying to dictate to other supporters what they can and cannot talk about and with whom. These are very important matters you are trying to stifle debate on.
Do you have any comment on the latest lies from the Trust regarding Coozegate? A public retraction? Revision? Apology?
Didn’t think so.
[Post edited 23 Feb 2019 15:44]
0
Conflict of interest on 15:53 - Feb 23 with 1562 views
Around £4m after tax is what I said. I stand by that until someone informs me otherwise.
I should have put “saleable” in front of shares then for the pedantic. £4m after tax is what the Trust would have at this point in time - plus some worthless and ubsaleable shares without any scope to take legal action.
Bend it however you like and play the word police - these are facts. If you think the Trust would have £4m after tax and a load of saleable shares left then I am seriously worried that you take a position on the board - that’s on top of already trying to dictate to other supporters what they can and cannot talk about and with whom. These are very important matters you are trying to stifle debate on.
Do you have any comment on the latest lies from the Trust regarding Coozegate? A public retraction? Revision? Apology?
Didn’t think so.
[Post edited 23 Feb 2019 15:44]
You seem extremely concerned with all things the trust, but I think your last comment regards Cooze brings us a little closer to your actual agenda.
Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk.
When I've got time I will repeat myself for the sixth time.
Not that old chestnut.
You have implied I have an agenda twice. I asked what it is twice.
I even told you in great detail what my agenda was.
Yet again you are completely none the wiser to what it is you are accusing people of. As soon as you are pushed on it you either run away or pretend you have already answered... or both in this case.
0
Conflict of interest on 16:07 - Feb 23 with 1522 views
You have implied I have an agenda twice. I asked what it is twice.
I even told you in great detail what my agenda was.
Yet again you are completely none the wiser to what it is you are accusing people of. As soon as you are pushed on it you either run away or pretend you have already answered... or both in this case.
We will have a healthy debate soon enough as long as you don't imply you are being bullied or threatened. Yes, that old chestnut. Teams are out.
Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.