| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. 13:48 - Apr 4 with 6192 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
I recall Easter 2010 under Paulo Sousa playing Trundle and Shefki Kuqi beating Barnsley 3-1 and the play off dream was on. It seems to me Swansea are in the exact same position (albeit in a better league position) as the club were when Paulo Sousa was in charge with tight purse strings
Reading between the lines the club did not like Sousa because of his unreasonable financial demands, (perhaps), and the rather turgid football style. Sousa took the club to the fringes of the playoffs with a relatively weak squad. He gave debuts to Keri Morgan and Jaz Richards as the acadmey was not as good as today's.
Cooper may be percieved in a similar way. This is based on the assumption that Cooper will not be able to raise the performance levels of his troops and will fail (based on current performances) to muster a credible promotion drive.
Sousa walked for whatever reason and the club got a compensation fee from Liecester. I presume the club declined Sousa's request for a bumper new deal based on his achievements. The club if is falls away this season will probably decline Coopers "bumper new deal".
My solution for this is to retrace what went right in 2010 and have a zoom call with Huw Jenkins's consultancy (in confidence ) to find and appoint the new manager. Brendan was a failed manager at Reading at the time. I would keep this confidential so as to not upset the activists and rabble rousers and fan forum cyber magnets.
[Post edited 4 Apr 2021 14:05]
|  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |  |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:32 - Apr 7 with 945 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 06:54 - Apr 7 by Chief |
Every non brainwashed fan of the club wants the supporters trust to have a say in decisions made at the club.
You are now peddling a fake narrative. You are referring to the amount of time it's taking to get the case to court or the amount of time it took in negotiating with the Americans AFTER the sale. So that has absolutely no bearing on how the Americans and sellouts were thinking when they colluded to prevent the trust having any voting rights.
Next paragraph makes no sense whatsoever either. You use Huw as an example but he gave his voting rights away, so has little say either. The way they've used their money and the constraints and circumstances they find themselves under is in no way comparative to that of the club.
The rest is your usual dreaming. Tag on agreements - why would the Americans bother allowing that to happen for example. Clutching at straws big time. Cooperation and trust now with a party that actively colluded to exclude them from previous negotiations. It appears that so far they haven't kept their recent word to get back negotiating either. Hardly the basis for good trust and negotiation is it?
The Premier league Burnley dream is getting increasingly less likely game by game. And it was unlikely that the circumstances required would have happened anyway.
So even by your biased unbalanced domesday scenario guesses the trust could receive far more for their shares after legal than they are worth now. If this was the Americans, you'd be lauding it as fantastic business. You yourself once said "any mark up of that value cannot be considered bad business".
How do you work out this Silverstein thing!? Has he ever shown any inclination to buying existing shares? His involvement was another deal that the trust were kept in the dark about until it was common knowledge so how you think he'd want to buy their shares is beyond me, he's had ample opportunity if he'd wanted to. You've spent enough time telling how he'd saved the club etc during covid with his (high interest) loan - the money wouldn't have gone directly into the club if he'd bought the trust out instead. Very weird take that one. |
Huw gave his voting rights away to the Americans. If I was him I would do the same. I would trust the US peole to run the club propertly. I would certainly not want the Trust to do this, They are divided and activists call the shots.
It took the Trust over a year to get a mandate to sell. In four months of talks they got nowhere.
I believe the US people would want to get the Trust on a tag on agreement and a drag on agreement. Imagine they found a Asian buyer for £200m. i could quite easily see the Trust asking for more a round £50m for their holding . This would be as a deal breaker and using leverage and a threat to derail the deal as leverage. The Trust move very slowly. They are widely "credited" with chasing away the "Moores Group" in 2015. A tag on removes all obstacles.
With regard to Burnley this is not a dream this is reality. I do not think in weeks or months but years. Even Cardiff city have been to the PL twice in the last 10 seasons playing hoofball. Fantasy it aint. Probably a 20% chance this season.
The Trust by going to court are taking huge risks. What happens if they lose the case? There almost certainly will be big penalties. A win would also be hurting the other club owners and therefore the club with possible job losses. At the same time the Trust has no idea about investments and the money would simply lose value by inflation. The court case is morally suspect and not in the interests of the city of Swansea, The Trust would pocket my estimate of £13m. THe US owners plan to reap £42m for the same shares.
Jack Lord said "the Trusts share were rendered worthless" . This was the rhetoric used to swing the pro court case vote and is bougus. I pointed out Jake Silverstein was looking to buy 5% of the club and if relations were good could have bought the Trust's shares rather than newly issued shares. This could occur if there were good realtions. Therefore the Trusts shares were not "rendered worthless". Its a myth. [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 14:38]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:49 - Apr 7 with 935 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 09:19 - Apr 7 by jack_lord |
I see you slagged me off in your last paragraph.
Perhaps you have forgotten why the trust was formed and exists?
Are you saying that Mindy Kalling thinks that the trust are not fit for purpose?
And imagine if you could have made 4.4 million from your shares but, because of the way the club was sold, saw yourself in a position where your shares were never needed in the future by any buyer of the club. The biggest difference is the intentions of the trust. |
You stated HJ and MM effectively mistreated the Trust. This is blatently false. The reverese it true. This is a case of Trust PR over riding reality in my opinion. They are very good at PR and winning votes they are very poor and networking and making money.
HJ and MM turned the Crumbling Vetch and debts into the Liberty Stadium, Fairwood and Morfa adacemey without borrowing any money and asking the Trust for nothing. The valuation of the Trusts holding was £21,000,000 a 100 times multiple of what was invested.
Not only this they found the Trust US casgh rich buyer wanting to buy the Trusts share and put them on a table in fornt of them TWICE. The Trust still managed to mess it up.
Please consider my arguments are think them through.
The Trust no not live by their remit. When the pandemic hit 12 months ago they had 21% shares and no money. All they had was the same plastic buckets they had in 2002 to play Leon s wages. THe US people stepped in to play the bills when gate receipts were lost. [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 14:52]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:50 - Apr 7 with 933 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:32 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Huw gave his voting rights away to the Americans. If I was him I would do the same. I would trust the US peole to run the club propertly. I would certainly not want the Trust to do this, They are divided and activists call the shots.
It took the Trust over a year to get a mandate to sell. In four months of talks they got nowhere.
I believe the US people would want to get the Trust on a tag on agreement and a drag on agreement. Imagine they found a Asian buyer for £200m. i could quite easily see the Trust asking for more a round £50m for their holding . This would be as a deal breaker and using leverage and a threat to derail the deal as leverage. The Trust move very slowly. They are widely "credited" with chasing away the "Moores Group" in 2015. A tag on removes all obstacles.
With regard to Burnley this is not a dream this is reality. I do not think in weeks or months but years. Even Cardiff city have been to the PL twice in the last 10 seasons playing hoofball. Fantasy it aint. Probably a 20% chance this season.
The Trust by going to court are taking huge risks. What happens if they lose the case? There almost certainly will be big penalties. A win would also be hurting the other club owners and therefore the club with possible job losses. At the same time the Trust has no idea about investments and the money would simply lose value by inflation. The court case is morally suspect and not in the interests of the city of Swansea, The Trust would pocket my estimate of £13m. THe US owners plan to reap £42m for the same shares.
Jack Lord said "the Trusts share were rendered worthless" . This was the rhetoric used to swing the pro court case vote and is bougus. I pointed out Jake Silverstein was looking to buy 5% of the club and if relations were good could have bought the Trust's shares rather than newly issued shares. This could occur if there were good realtions. Therefore the Trusts shares were not "rendered worthless". Its a myth. [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 14:38]
|
Well again, in that first paragraph you're bending a narrative to suit your agenda. Any potential division there may have been due to the purchase&offers since, so again this concern (albeit highly tenuous) wouldn't have been a concern at the start of this process. Huw obviously would have wanted to sell his votes to sweeten the deal and his bank balance.
Yes the Americans also got nowhere in 4 months too. Being the savvy businessmen they are you'd think they'd have been able to offer an appropriate package. Evidently not.
Right so if the Americans should approach the trust with this tag on idea then. They've owned their share now for 5 years and still haven't done this. The Americans move very slowly.
Haha you're mask is slipping. As a fan of the football club you should want as many obstacles and checks and balances for incoming buyers as possible! Obviously someone keen to sell would see this differently. Rather suspicious comment to make there!
Yes well who knows what the future holds and who the Americans will sell to next. What we can predict with a decent degree of certainty is that your Burnley plan is quite far off.
You're just going back to usual flawed logic that's been discussed repeatedly.
Haha the sellers broke a share holders agreement let alone the trust of fellow locals whom they've worked alongside for years in the sale, yet that's ok. The trust attempts to remedy the situation and that's now 'morally suspect"! That's up there with some of your best work fair play.
Already addressed the silliness of suggesting Silverstein would buy the trust's shares further up the thread. |  |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:57 - Apr 7 with 929 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:49 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You stated HJ and MM effectively mistreated the Trust. This is blatently false. The reverese it true. This is a case of Trust PR over riding reality in my opinion. They are very good at PR and winning votes they are very poor and networking and making money.
HJ and MM turned the Crumbling Vetch and debts into the Liberty Stadium, Fairwood and Morfa adacemey without borrowing any money and asking the Trust for nothing. The valuation of the Trusts holding was £21,000,000 a 100 times multiple of what was invested.
Not only this they found the Trust US casgh rich buyer wanting to buy the Trusts share and put them on a table in fornt of them TWICE. The Trust still managed to mess it up.
Please consider my arguments are think them through.
The Trust no not live by their remit. When the pandemic hit 12 months ago they had 21% shares and no money. All they had was the same plastic buckets they had in 2002 to play Leon s wages. THe US people stepped in to play the bills when gate receipts were lost. [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 14:52]
|
How is it blatantly false? They actively broke a shareholders agreement and contrived to exclude the trust from knowing anything about selling their shares. The rest of your paragraph is after the fact waffle.
The trust were on the board to oversee all those changes too.
If the Americans wanted to buy the trust's shares why exclude them from the sale? And since why not offer exactly the terms that the sellouts received? There's been plenty of opportunity to do that, you yourself admit you don't know whether that's happened. There's a court case upcoming so that suggests no offer was made.
If the Americans were so keen to buy the trust's shares but have failed to do so isn't it them who's messed up? They've messed up to the point now where they're going to be summoned to court to potentially make it happen! Sounds like shambolic business on the Americans behalf to me. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 15:23 - Apr 7 with 923 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:50 - Apr 7 by Chief |
Well again, in that first paragraph you're bending a narrative to suit your agenda. Any potential division there may have been due to the purchase&offers since, so again this concern (albeit highly tenuous) wouldn't have been a concern at the start of this process. Huw obviously would have wanted to sell his votes to sweeten the deal and his bank balance.
Yes the Americans also got nowhere in 4 months too. Being the savvy businessmen they are you'd think they'd have been able to offer an appropriate package. Evidently not.
Right so if the Americans should approach the trust with this tag on idea then. They've owned their share now for 5 years and still haven't done this. The Americans move very slowly.
Haha you're mask is slipping. As a fan of the football club you should want as many obstacles and checks and balances for incoming buyers as possible! Obviously someone keen to sell would see this differently. Rather suspicious comment to make there!
Yes well who knows what the future holds and who the Americans will sell to next. What we can predict with a decent degree of certainty is that your Burnley plan is quite far off.
You're just going back to usual flawed logic that's been discussed repeatedly.
Haha the sellers broke a share holders agreement let alone the trust of fellow locals whom they've worked alongside for years in the sale, yet that's ok. The trust attempts to remedy the situation and that's now 'morally suspect"! That's up there with some of your best work fair play.
Already addressed the silliness of suggesting Silverstein would buy the trust's shares further up the thread. |
The sellers sold their shares and the voting right of their own shares commercially at an agreed price. That is their right. The Trust can do the same. They do not have veto ing rights and no particular expertise. Their bank balance suggest major deficit in their networking skills under the previously elected regime
The sellers still love Swansea city and do not want the Trust running the club. I may be wrong on this but I suspect some activist want a fully community owned club in Swansea like Exeter. People like the Guardian journo who has tagged onto the club. Its about the "community" not the results or style of football. Personally I am not one for being patronised. "Its about going to old Trafford and winning". Give me John Van Zweden over Stuart James every day of the week.
Wrexham Trust owned and ran that club and they handed the club over to richer owner for free. Exeter Trust own Exeter simple to exist in league 2 or the natioanal league .
You can be sure when the US people want to sell they will be looking for a drag on agreement. They are currently considering buying new shares not selling It is only the Trust that wants out. Obviously the legal thing needs to run it course first.
The Trust is like a robust mother in law. They would almost certainly stopped the Levien Kaplan deal given the choise I suspect. I suspect no buyer will be quite good enough for "little Johny". Its the "Womens Institute factor".
The Trust will not be allowed to veto new ownership while holding a tag on drag on agreement. This is perhaps why the 2017 failed.? With no drag on they could create merry hell and do things like take legal advice.
Burnely could be 20 years away or just 4 months away. This is Swansea city. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 15:57 - Apr 7 with 916 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 15:23 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The sellers sold their shares and the voting right of their own shares commercially at an agreed price. That is their right. The Trust can do the same. They do not have veto ing rights and no particular expertise. Their bank balance suggest major deficit in their networking skills under the previously elected regime
The sellers still love Swansea city and do not want the Trust running the club. I may be wrong on this but I suspect some activist want a fully community owned club in Swansea like Exeter. People like the Guardian journo who has tagged onto the club. Its about the "community" not the results or style of football. Personally I am not one for being patronised. "Its about going to old Trafford and winning". Give me John Van Zweden over Stuart James every day of the week.
Wrexham Trust owned and ran that club and they handed the club over to richer owner for free. Exeter Trust own Exeter simple to exist in league 2 or the natioanal league .
You can be sure when the US people want to sell they will be looking for a drag on agreement. They are currently considering buying new shares not selling It is only the Trust that wants out. Obviously the legal thing needs to run it course first.
The Trust is like a robust mother in law. They would almost certainly stopped the Levien Kaplan deal given the choise I suspect. I suspect no buyer will be quite good enough for "little Johny". Its the "Womens Institute factor".
The Trust will not be allowed to veto new ownership while holding a tag on drag on agreement. This is perhaps why the 2017 failed.? With no drag on they could create merry hell and do things like take legal advice.
Burnely could be 20 years away or just 4 months away. This is Swansea city. |
Was it their right though? A legally binding shareholders agreement means they didn't have the right to unless the trust was included in the sale. It wasn't so technically no, they didn't have to right to....
The trust's expertise is the fact that they will always look out for the best interests of the club and the club alone, some the Americans can never claim. Their bank balance reflects exactly what they are: 1. A supporters trust with expenses and 2. A shareholder excluded from a major buy out.
That second paragraph is irrelevant waffle and propaganda.
No idea what relevance Wrexham are to us as a National league team.
You've slipped back into the same old tired story's you've repeated again and again now. For some reason you can't help yourself.
As i keep telling you it's about time you came to terms with the reality of the situation. Burnley isn't happening. The court case is. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 15:57 - Apr 7 with 915 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 15:23 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The sellers sold their shares and the voting right of their own shares commercially at an agreed price. That is their right. The Trust can do the same. They do not have veto ing rights and no particular expertise. Their bank balance suggest major deficit in their networking skills under the previously elected regime
The sellers still love Swansea city and do not want the Trust running the club. I may be wrong on this but I suspect some activist want a fully community owned club in Swansea like Exeter. People like the Guardian journo who has tagged onto the club. Its about the "community" not the results or style of football. Personally I am not one for being patronised. "Its about going to old Trafford and winning". Give me John Van Zweden over Stuart James every day of the week.
Wrexham Trust owned and ran that club and they handed the club over to richer owner for free. Exeter Trust own Exeter simple to exist in league 2 or the natioanal league .
You can be sure when the US people want to sell they will be looking for a drag on agreement. They are currently considering buying new shares not selling It is only the Trust that wants out. Obviously the legal thing needs to run it course first.
The Trust is like a robust mother in law. They would almost certainly stopped the Levien Kaplan deal given the choise I suspect. I suspect no buyer will be quite good enough for "little Johny". Its the "Womens Institute factor".
The Trust will not be allowed to veto new ownership while holding a tag on drag on agreement. This is perhaps why the 2017 failed.? With no drag on they could create merry hell and do things like take legal advice.
Burnely could be 20 years away or just 4 months away. This is Swansea city. |
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT**** | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 17:33 - Apr 7 with 905 views | BillyChong |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:57 - Apr 7 by Chief |
How is it blatantly false? They actively broke a shareholders agreement and contrived to exclude the trust from knowing anything about selling their shares. The rest of your paragraph is after the fact waffle.
The trust were on the board to oversee all those changes too.
If the Americans wanted to buy the trust's shares why exclude them from the sale? And since why not offer exactly the terms that the sellouts received? There's been plenty of opportunity to do that, you yourself admit you don't know whether that's happened. There's a court case upcoming so that suggests no offer was made.
If the Americans were so keen to buy the trust's shares but have failed to do so isn't it them who's messed up? They've messed up to the point now where they're going to be summoned to court to potentially make it happen! Sounds like shambolic business on the Americans behalf to me. |
Resolven never acknowledges the shareholders agreement in his spin |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 17:36 - Apr 7 with 904 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 15:57 - Apr 7 by Chief |
Was it their right though? A legally binding shareholders agreement means they didn't have the right to unless the trust was included in the sale. It wasn't so technically no, they didn't have to right to....
The trust's expertise is the fact that they will always look out for the best interests of the club and the club alone, some the Americans can never claim. Their bank balance reflects exactly what they are: 1. A supporters trust with expenses and 2. A shareholder excluded from a major buy out.
That second paragraph is irrelevant waffle and propaganda.
No idea what relevance Wrexham are to us as a National league team.
You've slipped back into the same old tired story's you've repeated again and again now. For some reason you can't help yourself.
As i keep telling you it's about time you came to terms with the reality of the situation. Burnley isn't happening. The court case is. |
I am not aware of any law saying shareholders cannot sell their shares or voting rights. I am no legal expert buy neither are you from what i understand. I have never seen the SLA . Perhaps you can provide the relevant clause supporting your opinon.
The claim of the Trust and the reality are quite different. Their contribution to the club in the last few years has been consistently negative. No financial investment for sure. That was left to the foreigners .
Their brief is to bring the fans closer to the club irrespective of ownership. The legal action is directly opposed to this and, will, if sucessfull, remove fan ownership from the club possibly indefinately. They were not formed to enrich 3rd party agencies from London to the tune of millions.
The Trust were excluded based on their wish not to sell. They were given another chance to sell half their shares but could not cut a deal in the face of fearce internal opposition by activists. Sales can only be carried out if buy and seller are united in agreement.
Wrexham valued their shareholding in the national league as zero. Ipswich today are valued at £40m in league 1. Derby £60m in the Championship and Burnley £200m. The costs of winning the case is something you do not wish to talk about. You also appear to have no idea about the costs of losing. These could also be prohibitive.
The members need another vote once the terms of winning and losing are established. The menbers may have understood the US owners were unlikely to invest new cash in the club and were primarily asset strippers. Jake Silverstein assured the fans he was an investor not a speculator and not in it for the short term.
He has put is cash down on the table to back up his words. Levien has done the same. They also provided the club with finance for 5 nrew players in january which the manager has chosen not to use. Cah not words pays the bills. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:46 - Apr 7 with 900 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 17:36 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am not aware of any law saying shareholders cannot sell their shares or voting rights. I am no legal expert buy neither are you from what i understand. I have never seen the SLA . Perhaps you can provide the relevant clause supporting your opinon.
The claim of the Trust and the reality are quite different. Their contribution to the club in the last few years has been consistently negative. No financial investment for sure. That was left to the foreigners .
Their brief is to bring the fans closer to the club irrespective of ownership. The legal action is directly opposed to this and, will, if sucessfull, remove fan ownership from the club possibly indefinately. They were not formed to enrich 3rd party agencies from London to the tune of millions.
The Trust were excluded based on their wish not to sell. They were given another chance to sell half their shares but could not cut a deal in the face of fearce internal opposition by activists. Sales can only be carried out if buy and seller are united in agreement.
Wrexham valued their shareholding in the national league as zero. Ipswich today are valued at £40m in league 1. Derby £60m in the Championship and Burnley £200m. The costs of winning the case is something you do not wish to talk about. You also appear to have no idea about the costs of losing. These could also be prohibitive.
The members need another vote once the terms of winning and losing are established. The menbers may have understood the US owners were unlikely to invest new cash in the club and were primarily asset strippers. Jake Silverstein assured the fans he was an investor not a speculator and not in it for the short term.
He has put is cash down on the table to back up his words. Levien has done the same. They also provided the club with finance for 5 nrew players in january which the manager has chosen not to use. Cah not words pays the bills. |
Did anyone say they'd broken the law? However it's entirely possible they broke a binding contract in the form of a shareholders agreement. I know you like to pretend it didn't exist, so how do you explain Huw trying to get it invalidated and disposed of!? He seemed to be aware of its significance!
2nd paragraph - random propaganda mumblings.
3rd more of same apart from, isn't that what you'd want? The trust out of the club? Why the need to constantly bleat on about clutching at every straw to discredit legal action? And you wonder why people think you have a vested interest!?
Again not sure why you've got such a bee in your bonnet about where legal representatives may be from. Aren't America party's charging the club 5% interest on loans? But that's ok for that money to go out of the club and across the Atlantic?
They didn't find out whether the trust didn't want to sell. So they essentially guessed. Bad decision. Shoddy business. Yes once that's not the same deal as others.
Wrexham irrelevancy next bit. Oh and the sacred Burnley fantasy returns again. It's ok, if the trust lose, its likely they'll still possess a holding big enough to cash in when we hit the Burnley level. By your logic its win win.
Haha you love moaning about the trust being fastidious and 'moving slowly'. So what do you suggest? Another vote! Haha.
Ah Silverstein who's charging the club 5%. That gives me great comfort. Wasn't he part of the interview where the Americans announced their intention to re-engage with the trust on the shareholding issue? The one they haven't followed through on?
Haha barely any of which we spent. Unless of course you're suggesting high loan fees made their over the Atlantic and were not refunded when the crocks they kindly got us returned home? | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:10 - Apr 7 with 890 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:46 - Apr 7 by Chief |
Did anyone say they'd broken the law? However it's entirely possible they broke a binding contract in the form of a shareholders agreement. I know you like to pretend it didn't exist, so how do you explain Huw trying to get it invalidated and disposed of!? He seemed to be aware of its significance!
2nd paragraph - random propaganda mumblings.
3rd more of same apart from, isn't that what you'd want? The trust out of the club? Why the need to constantly bleat on about clutching at every straw to discredit legal action? And you wonder why people think you have a vested interest!?
Again not sure why you've got such a bee in your bonnet about where legal representatives may be from. Aren't America party's charging the club 5% interest on loans? But that's ok for that money to go out of the club and across the Atlantic?
They didn't find out whether the trust didn't want to sell. So they essentially guessed. Bad decision. Shoddy business. Yes once that's not the same deal as others.
Wrexham irrelevancy next bit. Oh and the sacred Burnley fantasy returns again. It's ok, if the trust lose, its likely they'll still possess a holding big enough to cash in when we hit the Burnley level. By your logic its win win.
Haha you love moaning about the trust being fastidious and 'moving slowly'. So what do you suggest? Another vote! Haha.
Ah Silverstein who's charging the club 5%. That gives me great comfort. Wasn't he part of the interview where the Americans announced their intention to re-engage with the trust on the shareholding issue? The one they haven't followed through on?
Haha barely any of which we spent. Unless of course you're suggesting high loan fees made their over the Atlantic and were not refunded when the crocks they kindly got us returned home? |
The shareholders agreement again. What does it say Chief? Do you have any idea? What agreement was broken? Can you expand? Perhaps you can download it for us to examine. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:33 - Apr 7 with 884 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:10 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The shareholders agreement again. What does it say Chief? Do you have any idea? What agreement was broken? Can you expand? Perhaps you can download it for us to examine. |
Unfortunately its not in the public domain so as much as I'd like to download it i can't. Maybe a trust board member can shed more light than me.
Let's try this:
you are aware of its existence, you are aware of its name and you are aware of Jenkins' attempts to invalidate it post sale.
Therefore in your unbiased honest opinion as a person who likes to think they have knowledge in business, what do you think it entails? Be balanced. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:38 - Apr 7 with 880 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:33 - Apr 7 by Chief |
Unfortunately its not in the public domain so as much as I'd like to download it i can't. Maybe a trust board member can shed more light than me.
Let's try this:
you are aware of its existence, you are aware of its name and you are aware of Jenkins' attempts to invalidate it post sale.
Therefore in your unbiased honest opinion as a person who likes to think they have knowledge in business, what do you think it entails? Be balanced. |
You have quoted it so you must know what it says. Some clauses were broken according to you. What clauses were broken? | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:45 - Apr 7 with 878 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:38 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You have quoted it so you must know what it says. Some clauses were broken according to you. What clauses were broken? |
Ok no problem seeing as you are acting twp:
"Under the terms of that agreement, if a shareholder wanted to sell part or all of their stake, they were required to offer shares to their counterparts before offering them to external parties, a process it is alleged did not take place before the takeover".
This would explain Huws scurrying around. Further backed up by the Americans claiming that they had no knowledge of the agreement. So Huw and the lads obviously decided to omit that nugget during negotiations! | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 22:53 - Apr 7 with 859 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:45 - Apr 7 by Chief |
Ok no problem seeing as you are acting twp:
"Under the terms of that agreement, if a shareholder wanted to sell part or all of their stake, they were required to offer shares to their counterparts before offering them to external parties, a process it is alleged did not take place before the takeover".
This would explain Huws scurrying around. Further backed up by the Americans claiming that they had no knowledge of the agreement. So Huw and the lads obviously decided to omit that nugget during negotiations! |
Most fans seem angry about not being allowed to sell not about not being allowed to buy. There seem nothing in the agreement (according to your informtion) preventing others selling nor any obligation for them to share the purchase money equitably amongst all shareholders.
The claim appears to be about procedural issues relating to the Trust not being offered the chance to buy the shares sold to the US buyer first. It seems to me the correction of the court would be to allow them to buy them at 2016 prices plus minus inflation. (e.g. the Championship price). | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 23:30 - Apr 7 with 854 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 22:53 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Most fans seem angry about not being allowed to sell not about not being allowed to buy. There seem nothing in the agreement (according to your informtion) preventing others selling nor any obligation for them to share the purchase money equitably amongst all shareholders.
The claim appears to be about procedural issues relating to the Trust not being offered the chance to buy the shares sold to the US buyer first. It seems to me the correction of the court would be to allow them to buy them at 2016 prices plus minus inflation. (e.g. the Championship price). |
If selling they should have offered to sell to the trust (as a fellow shareholder). As such the trust were unjustly prejudiced in the deal. I believe that's why the sellouts are being summoned to court also.
So if due process would have been followed, it would have resulted in the trust probably getting wind of the Americans interest and may have resulted in them being involved in negotiations. Sadly we know that didn't happen.
We'll see what the court decides but i know the sale of the trust's shares is certainly one outcome that people including the trust envisage. Maybe its possible that the agreement also had some sort of tag along clause too?
Glad you now accept that this agreement exists and that it appears to have not been adhered to in the sale process. Maybe now you can re-evaluate your stance relating to the conduct of the sellers. [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 23:39]
| |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 13:24 - Apr 8 with 822 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 23:30 - Apr 7 by Chief |
If selling they should have offered to sell to the trust (as a fellow shareholder). As such the trust were unjustly prejudiced in the deal. I believe that's why the sellouts are being summoned to court also.
So if due process would have been followed, it would have resulted in the trust probably getting wind of the Americans interest and may have resulted in them being involved in negotiations. Sadly we know that didn't happen.
We'll see what the court decides but i know the sale of the trust's shares is certainly one outcome that people including the trust envisage. Maybe its possible that the agreement also had some sort of tag along clause too?
Glad you now accept that this agreement exists and that it appears to have not been adhered to in the sale process. Maybe now you can re-evaluate your stance relating to the conduct of the sellers. [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 23:39]
|
Te SLA is something you have claimed to have seen so I will take your word for it. There appears to be counter augument as to it validity which is speculation.
There seems to me to be numerous counter arguments for the defence. The biggest arguments will be the issue of the suitablity of the Trust to be able to handle buying and selling of shares in a reasonable time period. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 13:35 - Apr 8 with 821 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 13:24 - Apr 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Te SLA is something you have claimed to have seen so I will take your word for it. There appears to be counter augument as to it validity which is speculation.
There seems to me to be numerous counter arguments for the defence. The biggest arguments will be the issue of the suitablity of the Trust to be able to handle buying and selling of shares in a reasonable time period. |
Wow, where have i claimed to have seen it!!??
I have seen no counter argument questioning it's validity at all. If it wasn't valid Huw wouldn't have needed to try and get it ripped up. What accounts have you seen citing any of these counter arguments? The Americans state they didn't know it existed when they bought, while i can't recall any testimony from the sellers regarding it. Just Huws scurrying.
I can't see how the suitability of the trust to buy the shares would interest the court if that's what you are referring to. It wouldn't be for the court to speculate that. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:23 - Apr 8 with 815 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 13:35 - Apr 8 by Chief |
Wow, where have i claimed to have seen it!!??
I have seen no counter argument questioning it's validity at all. If it wasn't valid Huw wouldn't have needed to try and get it ripped up. What accounts have you seen citing any of these counter arguments? The Americans state they didn't know it existed when they bought, while i can't recall any testimony from the sellers regarding it. Just Huws scurrying.
I can't see how the suitability of the trust to buy the shares would interest the court if that's what you are referring to. It wouldn't be for the court to speculate that. |
You have quoted from the SLA so I assumed you must have seen it in some form. I am simply speculting on what argument the defence would proceed but am not a lawyer. What is admissible evidence and what is not is detailed stuff and above my pay grade. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 15:18 - Apr 8 with 811 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:23 - Apr 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You have quoted from the SLA so I assumed you must have seen it in some form. I am simply speculting on what argument the defence would proceed but am not a lawyer. What is admissible evidence and what is not is detailed stuff and above my pay grade. |
No i quoted from a trust spokesperson speaking in the press.
So you don't actually have or know of any counter argument against the breaking of the agreement?
Ok, in future seeing as you aren't a lawyer maybe you'd be better off taking into account the testimony of the trained professional who has evaluated the strength of the trust's case then. Instead of ignoring it and cherry picking bits you can twist to your narrative? | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 17:44 - Apr 8 with 805 views | BillyChong |
One clause of the SHA was for any sellers to first offer the trust a sale of the shares. That did not happen. | | | |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 01:15 - Apr 9 with 790 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 17:44 - Apr 8 by BillyChong |
One clause of the SHA was for any sellers to first offer the trust a sale of the shares. That did not happen. |
I recall the Trust discussing taking over 4% of the club as a part of the deal. An offer was made for 4% for £0. In dollar terms that was $0. You must remember it? | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 06:47 - Apr 9 with 783 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 01:15 - Apr 9 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I recall the Trust discussing taking over 4% of the club as a part of the deal. An offer was made for 4% for £0. In dollar terms that was $0. You must remember it? |
At which point during negotiations did that occur?
Did the selling shareholders offer that deal to the trust? | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:14 - Apr 9 with 767 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 06:47 - Apr 9 by Chief |
At which point during negotiations did that occur?
Did the selling shareholders offer that deal to the trust? |
Look it up. I am not your personal secretary. Every time I answer your posts in a polite manner I am accused of propoganda and the like. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:18 - Apr 9 with 766 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:14 - Apr 9 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Look it up. I am not your personal secretary. Every time I answer your posts in a polite manner I am accused of propoganda and the like. |
No, you don't answer the questions which do not suit your viewpoint either by refusing too like this latest response or going on some rant about your feelings about the trust as a whole instead. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
