| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against 17:29 - Jul 1 with 6544 views | E20Jack |
Before the poll was compromised by multis.
Certainly a clear direction here.
Let's hope the Trust members follow suit in what seems to be a pretty closed book of rhetoric on their part to sway decision one way rather than the other. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 9:16]
|  |
| |  |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:03 - Jul 2 with 1026 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:57 - Jul 2 by Jack_y_Jwc |
Was this really the wording?!
If only it was that cut & dry |
Is it anything other than '£5m and limited protection or persue the lot in court' then? Or is the truth laid bare too open and honest? | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:05 - Jul 2 with 1023 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:29 - Jul 2 by trampie |
I voted for legal action and I reckon the vote for legal action was 69% for and at that stage the poll had been up a long time.
It's seems like there is skullduggery afoot.
I do not trust the people running the club or sorry to say I do not trust the people running the supporters trust either. |
Sense isn't welcome on a thread that has panicked people into cheating and pretending nothing happened 
Very interesting let's say. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:09 - Jul 2 with 1013 views | Oldjack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:06 - Jul 2 by exiledclaseboy |
The OP took it down himself. |
Why ? any way it's a resounding win for legal action even if Phil doesn't like it  |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:13 - Jul 2 with 1003 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:09 - Jul 2 by Oldjack |
Why ? any way it's a resounding win for legal action even if Phil doesn't like it |
Because a few people who were terrified of the results decided to vote around 30 times in 10-15mins to change what was clearly a landsline victory for legal action. All with fresh untouched accounts that all appeared at the bottom of the page one after another all in order. It was a resounding result and the reaction to it isn't absolutely telling. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:14 - Jul 2 with 1000 views | Jack_y_Jwc |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:03 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
Is it anything other than '£5m and limited protection or persue the lot in court' then? Or is the truth laid bare too open and honest? |
What about the option of just doing nothing and leaving things as they are - is that an option?
The wording doesn't state "pursue" more money either. We could end up with a worse offer on the table at the end of litigation.
Nobody knows the end result here. We're guaranteed at least £5-6M by accepting the offer or we could just keep our 21% by doing nothing. Litigation could mean anything.
I've no idea which way to vote yet, this is a big decision for the future of the trust. |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:31 - Jul 2 with 982 views | Oldjack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:13 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
Because a few people who were terrified of the results decided to vote around 30 times in 10-15mins to change what was clearly a landsline victory for legal action. All with fresh untouched accounts that all appeared at the bottom of the page one after another all in order. It was a resounding result and the reaction to it isn't absolutely telling. |
ffs That's treacherous Huw tactics ,shocking if true i must say | |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:34 - Jul 2 with 981 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:14 - Jul 2 by Jack_y_Jwc |
What about the option of just doing nothing and leaving things as they are - is that an option?
The wording doesn't state "pursue" more money either. We could end up with a worse offer on the table at the end of litigation.
Nobody knows the end result here. We're guaranteed at least £5-6M by accepting the offer or we could just keep our 21% by doing nothing. Litigation could mean anything.
I've no idea which way to vote yet, this is a big decision for the future of the trust. |
I don't think anyone will leave things as they are surely? Hence the discussions.
The wording certainly did state persue the £21m. Persue the lot was the exact wording. We won't receive any offer after litigation, we either will win the case or we will lose it. Win it and we get £21m, lose it and nothing changes except we lost court costs.
£5m doesn't solve anything. What can we do with £5m. Ask yourself that and come back to me.
We have been told we have a strong case. Which any Tom, Dick and Harry could have told anyone for free. Yet after 30k looking for a QC to tell them the obvious and then seeking out a second opinion who then presumably told them the same obvious answer - they realise their perks and personal kudos could be under threat and decide to get cold feet.
£5m solves absolutely nothing with the protection that has been offered along with it - or lack of rather. They have no say in the club right now, they can't even chance the friendly ticket price ffs. So they "say in the club" view died when the sell outs sold their voting rights. It's now all about cash to secure the club a future and the current offer solves nothing and does not reflect the strength of our legal case which of course means £21m if victorious as expected. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 21:41]
| |
| |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 21:46 - Jul 2 with 962 views | Nookiejack |
| ****The pre Swexit opinion poll**** on 23:20 - Jul 1 by everytimeref |
If the Trust won (and there are no guarantees in any litigation ) the only thing the Court could order would be to force the new owners to buy all the Trust's shares at the same price they paid the old directors. There would be no possibility of over turning the sale or forcing Jenkins or anyone else out. The Trust would have no shares left, no seats on the Board and no influence on any decisions.
In addition, if the Trust lose the case they would have to pay their own legal costs plus the other parties' legal costs. |
When the Yanks sell and take up the drag rights the Trust will similarly have no shares left, no seats on the Board and no influence on any decisions.
So doesn't seem much difference.
The Yanks could sell soon after the members decision or in 5 years time. Who knows?
If we stay up would probably occur if there was another substantial increase in TV rights. Who knows though with increased streaming and Kodi etc - TV revenues may fall.
If a downward spiral scenario occurs then the Trust could lose £15m. So investing £1m fighting fund to save the £15m seems a very good investment.
From a moral perspective why should the Trust receive a less of an offer for their shares than Huw Jenkins, Martin Morgan, Leigh Dineen, Brain Katzen and JVZ? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:48 - Jul 2 with 964 views | Pokerface |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 20:59 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
I hope you aren't that stupid, for your sake. |
He actually is but can't help it.
Best avoided. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:50 - Jul 2 with 964 views | Jack_y_Jwc |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:34 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
I don't think anyone will leave things as they are surely? Hence the discussions.
The wording certainly did state persue the £21m. Persue the lot was the exact wording. We won't receive any offer after litigation, we either will win the case or we will lose it. Win it and we get £21m, lose it and nothing changes except we lost court costs.
£5m doesn't solve anything. What can we do with £5m. Ask yourself that and come back to me.
We have been told we have a strong case. Which any Tom, Dick and Harry could have told anyone for free. Yet after 30k looking for a QC to tell them the obvious and then seeking out a second opinion who then presumably told them the same obvious answer - they realise their perks and personal kudos could be under threat and decide to get cold feet.
£5m solves absolutely nothing with the protection that has been offered along with it - or lack of rather. They have no say in the club right now, they can't even chance the friendly ticket price ffs. So they "say in the club" view died when the sell outs sold their voting rights. It's now all about cash to secure the club a future and the current offer solves nothing and does not reflect the strength of our legal case which of course means £21m if victorious as expected. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 21:41]
|
£5m doesn't help much in the short term, but we could end up with c.8m which in the long term could be valuable - could the trust own significantly more than 21% in future if things turn pear shaped?
I've missed something somewhere if litigation means £21m in the bank or covering court costs. Are you sure about that? (I haven't read all 25 pages of the other thread, I'll have to before i vote) | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:58 - Jul 2 with 954 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:50 - Jul 2 by Jack_y_Jwc |
£5m doesn't help much in the short term, but we could end up with c.8m which in the long term could be valuable - could the trust own significantly more than 21% in future if things turn pear shaped?
I've missed something somewhere if litigation means £21m in the bank or covering court costs. Are you sure about that? (I haven't read all 25 pages of the other thread, I'll have to before i vote) |
What will £8m achieve then? Still nothing.
Litigation means we win the case or we lose the case. The remedy for winning the case (which the top QC we paid tens of thousands of pounds said we have a good chance of doing) is the Americans buying all the Trusts shares for the value they had at the time of the initial sale (£21m).
If we lose the case then we don't lose our shares. We just owe both parties court fees, which is what we have 700k in the bank for.
It really is a no brainier.
With £21m in the bank plus accumulating interest the Trust could potentially own a majority stake in the club should things go pear shaped which should secure the club forever. £6m or £8m will very seldom do that. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 22:02]
| |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 23:03 - Jul 2 with 911 views | UplandsJack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:58 - Jul 2 by E20Jack |
What will £8m achieve then? Still nothing.
Litigation means we win the case or we lose the case. The remedy for winning the case (which the top QC we paid tens of thousands of pounds said we have a good chance of doing) is the Americans buying all the Trusts shares for the value they had at the time of the initial sale (£21m).
If we lose the case then we don't lose our shares. We just owe both parties court fees, which is what we have 700k in the bank for.
It really is a no brainier.
With £21m in the bank plus accumulating interest the Trust could potentially own a majority stake in the club should things go pear shaped which should secure the club forever. £6m or £8m will very seldom do that. [Post edited 2 Jul 2017 22:02]
|
Good, no great post......
I'm starting to think there may be something in this theory that board members want to hold onto the kudos of position, plus the fear of more skeletons coming out if members vote for the legal action route.
Let's not forget,Dineen did say "let's not go gently"....... Maybe there was more to that than we initially thought ??? |  | | |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 23:52 - Jul 2 with 889 views | Meraki |
The poll has actually been deleted?
F*ck my eyes? I thought this was an independent website with nothing to do with the trust exccept run by the chairman of this trust? | | | |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 07:44 - Jul 3 with 842 views | barry_island |
Another vote for litigation here.
It may not be the safest route but it is the right one. | |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 08:28 - Jul 3 with 801 views | felixstowe_jack |
Who would the Trust be taking action against in court?
Is it
a) Individual shareholders?
b) Swansea City FC or whatever the holding company is called.
If it is individual shareholders I would think they are free to sell their shares to whoever they like.
If it is Swansea City then it is a lose lose situation.
The Trust wins get money from Swansea City less money to run the club.
Swansea City win they get money from the trust.
The only people who seem to win are the Lawyers who will a few million in fees. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:41 - Jul 3 with 747 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 08:28 - Jul 3 by felixstowe_jack |
Who would the Trust be taking action against in court?
Is it
a) Individual shareholders?
b) Swansea City FC or whatever the holding company is called.
If it is individual shareholders I would think they are free to sell their shares to whoever they like.
If it is Swansea City then it is a lose lose situation.
The Trust wins get money from Swansea City less money to run the club.
Swansea City win they get money from the trust.
The only people who seem to win are the Lawyers who will a few million in fees. |
Huh?
With respect I don't think you are grasping the situation.
The shareholders were not free to "sell to who they like". There was a shareholders agreement where if a sale is on the table then each shareholder gets the right to buy those shares first under a first refusal agreement. That was not adhered to and the Trust was bypassed.
The legal action will be against any party that was aware of the Shareholders agreement (according to the Trust that means all parties) and the case will be if the Trust has been unfairly prejudiced by the sale (it clearly has been).
The Trust will not be getting any money from the company. They will be getting money from the Americans who will be forced to offer the same deal to the Trust for their shares as they did for the other shareholders at the time. If they have a warranty on the shares then the sellouts will have to buy the Trusts shares.
No offence to you intended here but the fact we have Trust members not knowing these basic things really is testament to how badly informed the electorate is on this situation, it is the Trusts duty to make all scenarios clear and not just concentrate on the one it privately wants.
This does very much feel like the brexit vote. Unfortunately I can see the regettors coming out in force soon claiming that they were not properly informed and had they known we would just get £5m and naff all protection they would have voted differently. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:57 - Jul 3 with 735 views | Shaky |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:41 - Jul 3 by E20Jack |
Huh?
With respect I don't think you are grasping the situation.
The shareholders were not free to "sell to who they like". There was a shareholders agreement where if a sale is on the table then each shareholder gets the right to buy those shares first under a first refusal agreement. That was not adhered to and the Trust was bypassed.
The legal action will be against any party that was aware of the Shareholders agreement (according to the Trust that means all parties) and the case will be if the Trust has been unfairly prejudiced by the sale (it clearly has been).
The Trust will not be getting any money from the company. They will be getting money from the Americans who will be forced to offer the same deal to the Trust for their shares as they did for the other shareholders at the time. If they have a warranty on the shares then the sellouts will have to buy the Trusts shares.
No offence to you intended here but the fact we have Trust members not knowing these basic things really is testament to how badly informed the electorate is on this situation, it is the Trusts duty to make all scenarios clear and not just concentrate on the one it privately wants.
This does very much feel like the brexit vote. Unfortunately I can see the regettors coming out in force soon claiming that they were not properly informed and had they known we would just get £5m and naff all protection they would have voted differently. |
You don't know what you're talking about. |  |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:00 - Jul 3 with 720 views | E20Jack |
Yes, yes I do. But thanks for your second incredibly odd post of the thread.
Go back to the other thread while getting upset that Lisa is undermining you and your google searches would be my suggestion. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:08 - Jul 3 with 703 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 21:48 - Jul 2 by Pokerface |
He actually is but can't help it.
Best avoided. |
I have certainly made a mental note of that fact | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:11 - Jul 3 with 699 views | Shaky |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:00 - Jul 3 by E20Jack |
Yes, yes I do. But thanks for your second incredibly odd post of the thread.
Go back to the other thread while getting upset that Lisa is undermining you and your google searches would be my suggestion. |
Moron. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:18 - Jul 3 with 688 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:11 - Jul 3 by Shaky |
Moron. |
Funnily enough that seems to be the general consensus every time you post with your half baked googling.
Google what 'irony' means. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:27 - Jul 3 with 675 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 10:41 - Jul 3 by E20Jack |
Huh?
With respect I don't think you are grasping the situation.
The shareholders were not free to "sell to who they like". There was a shareholders agreement where if a sale is on the table then each shareholder gets the right to buy those shares first under a first refusal agreement. That was not adhered to and the Trust was bypassed.
The legal action will be against any party that was aware of the Shareholders agreement (according to the Trust that means all parties) and the case will be if the Trust has been unfairly prejudiced by the sale (it clearly has been).
The Trust will not be getting any money from the company. They will be getting money from the Americans who will be forced to offer the same deal to the Trust for their shares as they did for the other shareholders at the time. If they have a warranty on the shares then the sellouts will have to buy the Trusts shares.
No offence to you intended here but the fact we have Trust members not knowing these basic things really is testament to how badly informed the electorate is on this situation, it is the Trusts duty to make all scenarios clear and not just concentrate on the one it privately wants.
This does very much feel like the brexit vote. Unfortunately I can see the regettors coming out in force soon claiming that they were not properly informed and had they known we would just get £5m and naff all protection they would have voted differently. |
Thanks for your clarification.
No sure why you wandered off the track on BREXIT though | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:31 - Jul 3 with 672 views | E20Jack |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:27 - Jul 3 by felixstowe_jack |
Thanks for your clarification.
No sure why you wandered off the track on BREXIT though |
It isn't not off track, it is remarkably similar and thus noting the similarities.
An electorate that is ill informed, almost purposefully and met with the task of deciding on a subject that they have little information or understanding of consequences for.
Absolutely no doubt if a vote was passed to take the awful deal on offer you would have people in their droves complaining that they didn't know what they were voting for when it clearly then all goes pear shaped. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:36 - Jul 3 with 665 views | Jack_y_Jwc |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:31 - Jul 3 by E20Jack |
It isn't not off track, it is remarkably similar and thus noting the similarities.
An electorate that is ill informed, almost purposefully and met with the task of deciding on a subject that they have little information or understanding of consequences for.
Absolutely no doubt if a vote was passed to take the awful deal on offer you would have people in their droves complaining that they didn't know what they were voting for when it clearly then all goes pear shaped. |
The trust aren't blatantly lying though. They're just defending their recommendation, which is fair enough.
What does surprise me though is how every member of the trust board is behind the decision to accept this offer, surely one of them must be backing the litigation route. | |
| |
| Swexit poll result: 37 votes for legal action 12 against on 11:41 - Jul 3 with 663 views | felixstowe_jack |
There were only two choices in the referendum
Stay in the EU
Leave the EU
Seems pretty simple to me you either
vote to stay in the EU and be governed by unelected commissioners and the European Court of Justice has the final say on any laws.
Or vote to leave and by governed by elected MPs in a UK parliament with the British Supreme Court having the final say on UK law.
There is no such thing as half in or half out, hard remain or soft remain, hard brexit or soft brexit. It was a simple choice. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.