| Genuine question - from a Trust Member 19:19 - Nov 5 with 49903 views | marchamjack |
Were The Trust any part of the discussion process to keep Clement?
Thanks in advance. |  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |  |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:26 - Nov 5 with 2017 views | Garyjack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:17 - Nov 5 by IAN05 |
I'm surprised there hasn't been a public request for Jenkins' removal by the Trust board in honesty. He has royally shafted the Trust and continues to perform his role poorly. There is more than enough reason to crank the pressure up.
In light of the views of many fans, can it be added as an agenda point for Trust Board meeting ? |
Also begs the question that although the trust publish minutes of their own meetings, we hear nothing of the SD's meeting with the board. Nothing whatsoever! |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:28 - Nov 5 with 2011 views | Swanjaxs |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:24 - Nov 5 by whiterock |
Sensible heads are needed, I fear for us if football is left to Americans, we are two months off a window, I pray to god that players are lined up for January already. February 1st might be the time to move Huw Jenkins on, depending on how the window goes. Change him now and relegation will follow IMO |
I fear we'll be too far gone by January 1st anyway tbh, the sooner we cut Jenkins loose the better but it isn't going to happen |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:38 - Nov 5 with 1989 views | Wingstandwood |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:10 - Nov 5 by majorraglan |
I am pretty sure I read that HJ still has a shareholding of somewhere in the region of 5%, so that would be approx £5m on the share sale price, and even more if they could keep the club in the Prekier League and sell it at a profit as part of a future sale. Can’t see him wasting money etc just to get the sack and a pay out as the loss in value of his shares is likely to outweigh any pay off. |
Yeah, but if a current-ish pay-off is better than the current/future saleable value of his shares. He'd do what share investor speculators do when it comes to banking/taking of profits?
Using the same strategy/psychological approach. Take a GUARANTEED huge multi million Pound pay-off when financial opportunity is permissable to do so rather than wait with complete and utter non-crystal ball uncertainty. Because another similar mega million Pound sale offer anytime soon is hardly likely or guaranteed outcome is it? |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 01:39 - Nov 6 with 1923 views | snork44 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:28 - Nov 5 by Swanjaxs |
I fear we'll be too far gone by January 1st anyway tbh, the sooner we cut Jenkins loose the better but it isn't going to happen |
If we don't get rid of Jenkins now and let that idiot interfere in our transfer process in the January transfer window then we definitely be fvcked and we will almost certainly be relegated at the end of the season, it looks dire now if that buffoon stays it will be the end of our Premier League tenure. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 06:37 - Nov 6 with 1858 views | waynekerr55 |
Genuine question here. If the rumours are that the Americans have changed the goalposts with regards the terms of the share purchase, will these changes be put out to the membership to vote? |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 07:27 - Nov 6 with 1829 views | marchamjack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 06:37 - Nov 6 by waynekerr55 |
Genuine question here. If the rumours are that the Americans have changed the goalposts with regards the terms of the share purchase, will these changes be put out to the membership to vote? |
Thanks Ux for responding here and look forward to your reporting of the meeting on the question I asked.
The supplementary is this one - could we Members also have an update on where discussion are at with the Americans in terms of the share purchase? A position statement/update, call it what The Trust want would be welcome.
Thanks again in advance. | |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 07:49 - Nov 6 with 1809 views | Vetchfielder |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:17 - Nov 5 by IAN05 |
I'm surprised there hasn't been a public request for Jenkins' removal by the Trust board in honesty. He has royally shafted the Trust and continues to perform his role poorly. There is more than enough reason to crank the pressure up.
In light of the views of many fans, can it be added as an agenda point for Trust Board meeting ? |
In response to the same question from me on a different thread last week, Ux has agreed to raise it, although I can't imagine how they couldn't talk about it to be honest.
I also asked for it to be minuted and I hope it's written so as to describe the extent of HJ support or otherwise, rather than just a sterile statement.
I also hope that Ux could come on here tomorrow and update us on the Trust Board meeting's discussions on the HJ issue and give early feedback rather than have to wait a month for minutes. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 08:40 - Nov 6 with 1757 views | swancity |
I have a theory. The Trust continue to be run by people who aren't suitable to challenge things. Nice guys, pleasant, good guys who enjoy the trappings of being attached to the Club almost by default. Enjoying the seat in the directors box still and enjoying other perks, things are not about to change.
Stronger characters are needed. People who will happily ruffle feathers, speak out and do some fooking thing positive. The current Trust board are too weak and have not done anything to improve things since the fiasco of last year. Arguably, things have got worse. So do the honourable thing and stand down, all of you. Youve failed your duty in every respect I'm sorry to say. Consequently the Trust is history.
Uxbridge, stop making excuse after excuse and listen carefully to what people including resurrection are telling you. Do not reply with clever remarks, either do something positive, or stand down as you're presently all wasting your time. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 09:06 - Nov 6 with 1735 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 23:17 - Nov 5 by IAN05 |
I'm surprised there hasn't been a public request for Jenkins' removal by the Trust board in honesty. He has royally shafted the Trust and continues to perform his role poorly. There is more than enough reason to crank the pressure up.
In light of the views of many fans, can it be added as an agenda point for Trust Board meeting ? |
This ^^^^ Why hasn't it happened yet?
<<I hope that happens very soon. If it doesn't, then criticism in that regard is well deserved. Not the personal stuff though. >>
in regards to Ux's point above, there is obviously division within the Trust on how to move forwards in regards to Communication. You seem to want it to played out more publicly, as it should be at the moment in my opinion, but coming on here saying it every few weeks isn't going to cut it anymore. There is nothing happening, no changes, we don't even know where the Trust stand on some aspects. You need the support from the masses because what you're doing at the moment isn't working. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 09:13 - Nov 6 with 1724 views | whiterock |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 09:06 - Nov 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
This ^^^^ Why hasn't it happened yet?
<<I hope that happens very soon. If it doesn't, then criticism in that regard is well deserved. Not the personal stuff though. >>
in regards to Ux's point above, there is obviously division within the Trust on how to move forwards in regards to Communication. You seem to want it to played out more publicly, as it should be at the moment in my opinion, but coming on here saying it every few weeks isn't going to cut it anymore. There is nothing happening, no changes, we don't even know where the Trust stand on some aspects. You need the support from the masses because what you're doing at the moment isn't working. |
That's a fair analysis, they are a committee, any committee has differences, the Trust board would be unique if it agreed on every issue.
They are a democracy and any split is rightly kept behind closed doors. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 10:03 - Nov 6 with 1670 views | TheResurrection |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 09:13 - Nov 6 by whiterock |
That's a fair analysis, they are a committee, any committee has differences, the Trust board would be unique if it agreed on every issue.
They are a democracy and any split is rightly kept behind closed doors. |
you will always have random people making excuses for the Trust on the Trust Chairman's website.
It's always gone on.
Nothing should be kept secret apart from the most sensitive of issues.
These bloody same people have not got a good record in running the Trust yet continue to allow themselves the honour of making more mistakes, and then being in a position where they can manipulate what's put out to the masses and potentially distort important information.
For years and years we had the Chairman and Vice Chairman running the 2 main forums and the Director running his own business at the Club.
WTF??? |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 10:07 - Nov 6 with 1660 views | Loyal |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 10:03 - Nov 6 by TheResurrection |
you will always have random people making excuses for the Trust on the Trust Chairman's website.
It's always gone on.
Nothing should be kept secret apart from the most sensitive of issues.
These bloody same people have not got a good record in running the Trust yet continue to allow themselves the honour of making more mistakes, and then being in a position where they can manipulate what's put out to the masses and potentially distort important information.
For years and years we had the Chairman and Vice Chairman running the 2 main forums and the Director running his own business at the Club.
WTF??? |
How does a football forum the owner ran years before he had any club involvement matter ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 10:10 - Nov 6 with 1646 views | STID2017 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 10:03 - Nov 6 by TheResurrection |
you will always have random people making excuses for the Trust on the Trust Chairman's website.
It's always gone on.
Nothing should be kept secret apart from the most sensitive of issues.
These bloody same people have not got a good record in running the Trust yet continue to allow themselves the honour of making more mistakes, and then being in a position where they can manipulate what's put out to the masses and potentially distort important information.
For years and years we had the Chairman and Vice Chairman running the 2 main forums and the Director running his own business at the Club.
WTF??? |
Am I right in thinking you are saying that Phil & co are running this forum for their own ends and affecting our freedom of speech ?
The like of you, Loyal, Trampie & quite a few others are very outspoken about your personal views on everything relating to the Swans.
Quite right too, as that is the idea of a forum.
However, I have not been aware of any censorship in place on this forum, except on a very few occasions when personal information was given out or the post was extremely abusive |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:13 - Nov 6 with 1604 views | TheResurrection |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 10:07 - Nov 6 by Loyal |
How does a football forum the owner ran years before he had any club involvement matter ? |
Quite simple to most I would've thought.
It's stopped probing questions over the years.
Threads get hijacked, deleted, whatever... | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:17 - Nov 6 with 1593 views | TheResurrection |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 10:10 - Nov 6 by STID2017 |
Am I right in thinking you are saying that Phil & co are running this forum for their own ends and affecting our freedom of speech ?
The like of you, Loyal, Trampie & quite a few others are very outspoken about your personal views on everything relating to the Swans.
Quite right too, as that is the idea of a forum.
However, I have not been aware of any censorship in place on this forum, except on a very few occasions when personal information was given out or the post was extremely abusive |
Over the years good debate was shut down and posts removed simply because they were on this site.
It's Phil's site, he used to post daily, he's always had a lot of kudos on here. Same for Jim when he took over Dai's site.
The Trust Chairman and Vice Chairman should never have been allowed to run the 2 prominent Swans forums as it would always have been perceived as being in a position of potential manipulation.
It's not hard to understand. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:28 - Nov 6 with 1563 views | Darran |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:17 - Nov 6 by TheResurrection |
Over the years good debate was shut down and posts removed simply because they were on this site.
It's Phil's site, he used to post daily, he's always had a lot of kudos on here. Same for Jim when he took over Dai's site.
The Trust Chairman and Vice Chairman should never have been allowed to run the 2 prominent Swans forums as it would always have been perceived as being in a position of potential manipulation.
It's not hard to understand. |
Let me ask you a genuine question then.
Why do you keep changing your mind? |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:31 - Nov 6 with 1557 views | STID2017 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:17 - Nov 6 by TheResurrection |
Over the years good debate was shut down and posts removed simply because they were on this site.
It's Phil's site, he used to post daily, he's always had a lot of kudos on here. Same for Jim when he took over Dai's site.
The Trust Chairman and Vice Chairman should never have been allowed to run the 2 prominent Swans forums as it would always have been perceived as being in a position of potential manipulation.
It's not hard to understand. |
None of us, yourself included are simple children who can be manipulated easily.
You have very strong viewpoints on certain matters and will not be shifted from those, whatever anyone says or whatever you witness. I respect that, even if we fail to agree on a lot of things.
However, you fail to see that many other posters (myself included) are not easily manipulated either.
We all see what Phil and co do and make our own individual judgements on that. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:32 - Nov 6 with 1557 views | trampie |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 10:10 - Nov 6 by STID2017 |
Am I right in thinking you are saying that Phil & co are running this forum for their own ends and affecting our freedom of speech ?
The like of you, Loyal, Trampie & quite a few others are very outspoken about your personal views on everything relating to the Swans.
Quite right too, as that is the idea of a forum.
However, I have not been aware of any censorship in place on this forum, except on a very few occasions when personal information was given out or the post was extremely abusive |
I was banned several times from here for nothing, when reinstated and I asked I had answers like - they did not know why and it was a mistake.
From what I hear it's now not the policy to ban people because they disagree with them (quite right too) but they could go the other way too much now and not ban people for abuse.
Free speech and abuse are totally different things, posters should be able to have their say without being sensored and posters should be told off for abuse but sometimes posters will fight fire with fire because the original abuse has come from inside the clique and the poster inside the clique is allowed to get away with it, in that case open season is fair enough the site will have brought it on itself.
The parameters of the debate can be controlled and manipulated which is a concern for fair play and decency, no idea if there is currently an issue on that score or not, questions have been asked in the past, posters need to be vigilant. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:44 - Nov 6 with 1535 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:32 - Nov 6 by trampie |
I was banned several times from here for nothing, when reinstated and I asked I had answers like - they did not know why and it was a mistake.
From what I hear it's now not the policy to ban people because they disagree with them (quite right too) but they could go the other way too much now and not ban people for abuse.
Free speech and abuse are totally different things, posters should be able to have their say without being sensored and posters should be told off for abuse but sometimes posters will fight fire with fire because the original abuse has come from inside the clique and the poster inside the clique is allowed to get away with it, in that case open season is fair enough the site will have brought it on itself.
The parameters of the debate can be controlled and manipulated which is a concern for fair play and decency, no idea if there is currently an issue on that score or not, questions have been asked in the past, posters need to be vigilant. |
That's shocking if true, and a sad reflection on how things have gone horribly wrong over the last few seasons.
People who spoke negatively regarding Jenkins were publicly shot down on here, Warwick being a big example. The same people who did are the same ones that have completely changed their tune now. As Loyal said, too little too late. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:52 - Nov 6 with 1515 views | Darran |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:32 - Nov 6 by trampie |
I was banned several times from here for nothing, when reinstated and I asked I had answers like - they did not know why and it was a mistake.
From what I hear it's now not the policy to ban people because they disagree with them (quite right too) but they could go the other way too much now and not ban people for abuse.
Free speech and abuse are totally different things, posters should be able to have their say without being sensored and posters should be told off for abuse but sometimes posters will fight fire with fire because the original abuse has come from inside the clique and the poster inside the clique is allowed to get away with it, in that case open season is fair enough the site will have brought it on itself.
The parameters of the debate can be controlled and manipulated which is a concern for fair play and decency, no idea if there is currently an issue on that score or not, questions have been asked in the past, posters need to be vigilant. |
It’s never been a policy to ban people on here but some mods like Lord Bony let it go to their heads.
The owner of this site is 100% against banning and the removal of posts. I’ve actually had a conversation with him this very weekend about posts and threads being deleted and it’s going to stop. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:53 - Nov 6 with 1517 views | monmouth |
Seems fairly obvious to me that someone like Lisa, with genuine Non-Executive experience that would ask awkward and pointed questions and knows her way around a boardroom should be asked if she would take the role of Supporter Director. The nice, silent, friendly, amateur pussycat we have now is a complete and utter waste of time.
Won't happen of course because Trust 'regulations' prevent it. Didn't prevent the HC situation and Jim White visibly shown to be dissembling about it on the other forum, or others being co-opted to the Board, but there we are, regulations is regulations when it suits. And yes, that is a deliberate provocation and to prove it false and get someone with more guts and drive into that boardroom to stir things up.
No doubt in my mind that the Trust Board's main objective is to maintain the status quo, not for any personal gain, but because they like their comfortable bubble where having meetings, and reporting back, seems like having an impact on the club they love. It isn't.
Do I want to stand? No. So I guess that means I have to STFU while the whole thing runs into the ground, steered by the same old loveable faces with the best intentions.
Yes, I'm still pissed off about the legal action manipulation (can you tell?) and the desire at any costs to maintain the Trust in a useless ineffective position. What's the next step? Give any money back to the Yanks in the Championship next year to help pay Clucas' wages? Does anyone think that far fetched now.
Ach, I'll stop posting about this now. I've said that a few times, so I'll really try this time, but where we are as a club is just making my blood boil, and I am totally fed up with it all. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:57 - Nov 6 with 1504 views | Darran |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:53 - Nov 6 by monmouth |
Seems fairly obvious to me that someone like Lisa, with genuine Non-Executive experience that would ask awkward and pointed questions and knows her way around a boardroom should be asked if she would take the role of Supporter Director. The nice, silent, friendly, amateur pussycat we have now is a complete and utter waste of time.
Won't happen of course because Trust 'regulations' prevent it. Didn't prevent the HC situation and Jim White visibly shown to be dissembling about it on the other forum, or others being co-opted to the Board, but there we are, regulations is regulations when it suits. And yes, that is a deliberate provocation and to prove it false and get someone with more guts and drive into that boardroom to stir things up.
No doubt in my mind that the Trust Board's main objective is to maintain the status quo, not for any personal gain, but because they like their comfortable bubble where having meetings, and reporting back, seems like having an impact on the club they love. It isn't.
Do I want to stand? No. So I guess that means I have to STFU while the whole thing runs into the ground, steered by the same old loveable faces with the best intentions.
Yes, I'm still pissed off about the legal action manipulation (can you tell?) and the desire at any costs to maintain the Trust in a useless ineffective position. What's the next step? Give any money back to the Yanks in the Championship next year to help pay Clucas' wages? Does anyone think that far fetched now.
Ach, I'll stop posting about this now. I've said that a few times, so I'll really try this time, but where we are as a club is just making my blood boil, and I am totally fed up with it all. |
Mon I do agree with the gist of what you’re saying but it’s not just Swansea City Supporters Trust that have regulations in place. You say it as if it’s unusual. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:02 - Nov 6 with 1482 views | trampie |
It was any criticism of the Brit Nat state in my case, it got to the stage where I put up a link to the Beeb site where Wales women had beaten a British representative team of some description and I was banned straight away, there is no background by the way, no arguments or swearing on the thread just banned.
Somebody and I now strongly suspect who, clearly did not like Wales being promoted and Wales beating a British representative team was just too much.
The issue that is being alluded to here is criticism of the board and supporters trust but the principal is the same, shut down debate if the argument is going badly or you don't like the subject matter or a poster is talking about things you wish they would not want to talk about.
There was real concerns at one time, not to say it was the case as I was not involved in trust posters, don't know if those concerns are still about.
My story shows it is possible to dictate the agenda and terms of debate (not saying there is any longer a problem) but posters need to be wary . | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:05 - Nov 6 with 1471 views | Darran |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:02 - Nov 6 by trampie |
It was any criticism of the Brit Nat state in my case, it got to the stage where I put up a link to the Beeb site where Wales women had beaten a British representative team of some description and I was banned straight away, there is no background by the way, no arguments or swearing on the thread just banned.
Somebody and I now strongly suspect who, clearly did not like Wales being promoted and Wales beating a British representative team was just too much.
The issue that is being alluded to here is criticism of the board and supporters trust but the principal is the same, shut down debate if the argument is going badly or you don't like the subject matter or a poster is talking about things you wish they would not want to talk about.
There was real concerns at one time, not to say it was the case as I was not involved in trust posters, don't know if those concerns are still about.
My story shows it is possible to dictate the agenda and terms of debate (not saying there is any longer a problem) but posters need to be wary . |
There’s a reason this is the busiest most popular Swans forum out there and that’s because Phil has never wanted debate,disagreements deleted.
The way people are able to speak on here is what’s made it what it is. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:10 - Nov 6 with 1461 views | Dewi1jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:44 - Nov 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
That's shocking if true, and a sad reflection on how things have gone horribly wrong over the last few seasons.
People who spoke negatively regarding Jenkins were publicly shot down on here, Warwick being a big example. The same people who did are the same ones that have completely changed their tune now. As Loyal said, too little too late. |
Some were questioning the policies of transfer windows, hiring and firing managers etc, allowing a previously useful style of football that allowed us to compete to be shredded.
Many more started after Brad Boobleys appointment.
More still after the sell out and the way the Trust was tucked up- if I remember rightly 200+ voted for legal action INCLUDING the call for Beaky, Dimwit, Morgan and all the others to face being legally reported for their actions as the Trust stated categorically that they had contravened regulations.
Somewhere in the region of 900 couldn't even be arzed to vote.
This is building, maybe slowly, but the fire is alight so I see little point in having a go at people finally waking up.
We need to start standing united as a fan base.
That way the Yank moneymen will start to understand we're really not like every other club out there and their "customer fanbase aren't enjoying their matchday experience".
If we're not and I hate the term customers btw, then they will possibly spot a drop off in their income coming and get on the backs of Stevie Boy and Jase to sort it out. |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
