| Trust Response 13:21 - Feb 13 with 13020 views | Darran |
Supporters’ Trust notes with interest, surprise and anger the press release from IPS Law, the legal representative of at least some of the former shareholders of Swansea City Football Club, and the subsequent article in the Mail Online, both of which are factually incorrect and wrongly blame the Trust for lack of progress towards a mediated settlement in relation to the sale of our football club in 2016. We note with surprise that the Mail Online did not seek any comment from the Trust before publishing its article. Legal advice is being taken.
As members will be aware from several previous Trust statements (some still publicly available on the Trust website), the Trust first proposed mediation as long ago as 18th May 2018 in its Claim Letter sent to the Club’s American owners and Huw Jenkins and other selling shareholders. This was sent in order to comply with the High Court’s Practice Direction, which sets out what parties in dispute should do prior to issuing court proceedings. It lays down a maximum timeline of three months within which the defendant parties should provide a full written response to the claim. Whilst the owners eventually provided a belated response, nine months later the Trust was still waiting for one from the Huw Jenkins and others represented by IPS Law. Finally, last Friday Chris Farnell of IPS Law informed our legal representatives that he had been instructed not to provide a detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction — and opening themselves to costs sanctions from the court if or when proceedings have to be issued against them.
IPS Law claims that their clients are willing to mediate, but that is at odds with their refusal to address the legal issues set out in the claim letter. Mediation cannot sensibly take place without that response/defence and the Trust cannot commit to wasting the funds of our members whilst the selling shareholders concerned refuse to properly engage in the pre-action process.
The Trust must also respond to the patently untrue accusation that we have twice backed out of a mediation. As our members will be aware, the first proposed mediation towards the end of last year was cancelled due to the late decision of Jason Levien not to attend. It should also be noted that it became clear in the last week that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, in spite of the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation. Although alternative attendees were suggested, a mediation is much less likely to be productive while the managing partners of the club’s owners are not prepared to fully engage.
It was again the Trust which took the initiative and proposed mediation this year, by letter from its lawyers on 16 January. This specified that Huw Jenkins and the other selling shareholders represented by IPS Law should deliver their response/defence letter by 31 January. As noted already, last Friday, though IPS Law, they refused to do so and in so doing rejected the Trust’s proposal for a mediation. That, coupled with the refusal of Messrs Levien and Kaplan to attend, is the reason that a mediation has not gone ahead. The published allegation that the Trust unilaterally withdrew at the last minute is simply untrue.
The Trust notes that while we remain in dispute with the club’s majority shareholders on various issues, they have at least shown some level of willingness to engage with the Trust. It is disappointing and notable that the selling shareholders concerned, self-proclaimed fans and former custodians of the club, have shown significantly less willingness to engage in the pre-action process.
We also note that the first move of those selling shareholders after the breakdown in discussions was to get their legal representative to rush out and speak to the press, which hardly seems in the best interests of the Football Club from which Huw Jenkins has recently resigned as chairman. It is astonishing that they accuse the Trust of trying to damage the club when we look at the current league position in comparison to 2016.
Whilst the Trust remains willing to engage in mediation, that is entirely dependent on all other parties taking the process seriously. We note the willingness of the selling shareholders concerned, through their legal representatives, to play this out in the court of public opinion rather than through the legal process. We can only conclude that this, along with their reluctance to even put forward a defence to our claim as is required by the courts’ practice direction, can only be due to the fact they know they have no defence. On the issue of costs consequences to the Trust or the impact on our legal position, our legal advisors are fully confident that the record will show it is the Trust that has made every effort to ensure that the mediation process is followed and succeeds, and we have often gone above and beyond to give this process a chance of success.
In terms of next steps, our members will know the Trust is planning a consultation with members next month where our membership would have the chance to vote on the various options available to the Trust. One of these options would be whether to proceed with legal action in relation to the 2016 sale of our football club.
The Trust has extended the offer to the legal representatives of the majority owners to continue discussions between the two parties with a view to seeking a settlement, which we would then present to our members as an option during the consultation. We hope this offer is taken up. In the meantime, the Trust’s legal team will be considering our options regarding pursuing claims against IPS Law’s clients separately.
Swansea City Supporters Trust
13th February 2019
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 13:26]
|  |
| |  |
| Trust Response on 15:23 - Feb 13 with 2672 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Trust Response on 15:20 - Feb 13 by jasper_T |
If you haven't done anything wrong you set out your case to the other party and sit down to mediation to settle things without having to go to court, which is expensive and often unnecessary. |
If in doubt, say nowt is usually the best form of behaviour. Particularly in legal matters.
You may be absolutely correct though. I hope you arent mind as that adds yet anotehr layer of disappointment to an already messy situation |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:25 - Feb 13 with 2666 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
IPS Law handled the sale for the sellouts, they are at the heart of the dispute, poor work by the DM not to realise this. By the look of it this is a small legal firm.
https://ipslaw.co.uk/about-us
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 15:49]
|  |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:26 - Feb 13 with 2658 views | monmouth |
There is no level these 'swansea fans' won't stoop to is there. As someone once said, if you got to the last circle of hell, and there sat the most depraved person you can imagine, there would be this lot of greedy spiteful venal bastards underneath looking up his arse to see if they can find a pound.
They are disgusting. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:29 - Feb 13 with 2644 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 15:23 - Feb 13 by PozuelosSideys |
If in doubt, say nowt is usually the best form of behaviour. Particularly in legal matters.
You may be absolutely correct though. I hope you arent mind as that adds yet anotehr layer of disappointment to an already messy situation |
It may well be that Levein and Kaplan don't see the point of coming over when the former shareholders aren't making any sort of effort and their case is dependent on them.
But "saying nowt" isn't the best course of action if you think you're in the right and the other party is carefully moving towards taking you to court. Expensive, no guarantees you'll win, and not a great look for hedge fund managers who depend on the trust of their investors. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 15:31 - Feb 13 with 2625 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Trust Response on 15:29 - Feb 13 by jasper_T |
It may well be that Levein and Kaplan don't see the point of coming over when the former shareholders aren't making any sort of effort and their case is dependent on them.
But "saying nowt" isn't the best course of action if you think you're in the right and the other party is carefully moving towards taking you to court. Expensive, no guarantees you'll win, and not a great look for hedge fund managers who depend on the trust of their investors. |
Well lets hope its the former, at least from a footballing point of view.
Maybe now Jenkins has gone they will change strategy and engage. (we can hope, eh?) | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust Response on 15:32 - Feb 13 with 2621 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Trust Response on 15:29 - Feb 13 by jasper_T |
It may well be that Levein and Kaplan don't see the point of coming over when the former shareholders aren't making any sort of effort and their case is dependent on them.
But "saying nowt" isn't the best course of action if you think you're in the right and the other party is carefully moving towards taking you to court. Expensive, no guarantees you'll win, and not a great look for hedge fund managers who depend on the trust of their investors. |
I think another mediation date would help here, if the sellouts and or Levien don't turn up then the Trust has tried enough to mediate? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Response on 15:56 - Feb 13 with 2524 views | TenbySwan |
| Trust Response on 15:25 - Feb 13 by JACKMANANDBOY |
IPS Law handled the sale for the sellouts, they are at the heart of the dispute, poor work by the DM not to realise this. By the look of it this is a small legal firm.
https://ipslaw.co.uk/about-us
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 15:49]
|
Submit a complaint to the firm and to The Law Society for conflict of interest. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 16:04 - Feb 13 with 2494 views | wobbly |
| Trust Response on 15:26 - Feb 13 by monmouth |
There is no level these 'swansea fans' won't stoop to is there. As someone once said, if you got to the last circle of hell, and there sat the most depraved person you can imagine, there would be this lot of greedy spiteful venal bastards underneath looking up his arse to see if they can find a pound.
They are disgusting. |
I think that was Ben Elton, in his 1980s prime, talking abouut tabloid newspaper editors?
Ironic that the sellouts chose the Daily Mail for their bull5hit. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 16:05 - Feb 13 with 2485 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 15:56 - Feb 13 by TenbySwan |
Submit a complaint to the firm and to The Law Society for conflict of interest. |
Where's the conflict? They're representing the same people regarding the same issue. | | | |
| Trust Response on 16:06 - Feb 13 with 2467 views | Loyal |
I'm unsure as to why anyone wronged by the cnt doesn't just knock the greedy fckr out. |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Trust Response on 16:17 - Feb 13 with 2442 views | chad |
| Trust Response on 15:16 - Feb 13 by PozuelosSideys |
Neither would i if i had already taken my own legal advice who advised me that i hadnt done anything wrong and the fault lays with the selling party.
Arent there all sorts of documents and minutes missing from all the discussions they had also?
May be entirely wrong here, but imo they are just watching the car crash from afar until its time they were dragged in |
Not done anything wrong well.....
Their actions put a major shareholder (the Trust) in a massively disadvantaged position post sale. Such that a top legal Counsel in these matters has said we have a strong case for unfair prejudice. A strong case is about the highest recommendation any Counsel would put there considerable reputations on in a case. The most likely outcome of winning such a case would be the requirement to purchase our shares for the price at the time of the sale (£21m +).
Also:
They have repeatedly excluded the Trust and even apologised for it then done the same again.
They agreed to a deal that was massively beneficial to them, then unilaterally pulled out of it.
Plus from there own mouths in that taped Trust meeting they attended almost 2 years ago...
They admitted agreeing with the sellouts to keep the Trust out of the sale. This was in the period where the deal was sewn up between them. (They denied collusion but the actions they admitted to were most definitely that).
Let us think about that for a minute they colluded against their future main shareholding partners to exclude them whilst the sale agreements were sewn up between them.
Then they knowingly concluded a sale in knowledge of a pre existing (and previously adhered to by all shareholding parties) shareholder agreement whose contractual requirements in relation to any share sale had not been adhered to. In fact they made stuttering and conflicting statements about this, from initially agreeing they knew nothing about it, to the saying they had asked for a copy. (Um and you concluded the sale without following that up - plus the Trust subsequently confirmed they had supplied them with a copy pre sale).
They also took responsibility for the Bob Bradley fiasco
They also made it clear that Huw was their man and they had full faith in him, despite the many and varied concerns raised about his ability, performance and character. As they now admit (and is plain to see) that has not worked out. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 16:53 - Feb 13 with 2352 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Trust Response on 15:56 - Feb 13 by TenbySwan |
Submit a complaint to the firm and to The Law Society for conflict of interest. |
More about lazy reporting, the law firm are at the heart of the Trust case and their role in advising the sellouts should have been reported for balance and the Trust should have been asked for comment. | |
| |
| Trust Response on 17:22 - Feb 13 with 2271 views | BillyChong |
Jesus, could Dineen be anymore of a c0ck if he tried. Absolute disgrace. | | | |
| Trust Response on 17:28 - Feb 13 with 2249 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust Response on 17:22 - Feb 13 by BillyChong |
Jesus, could Dineen be anymore of a c0ck if he tried. Absolute disgrace. |
I know that I'm a repetitive pillock, but what they've done is far worse than Petty and,dare I say it Scam and the Annis crew. Disgusting parasites. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 17:33 - Feb 13 with 2228 views | waynekerr55 |
 | |
| |
| Trust Response on 18:14 - Feb 13 with 2113 views | Badlands |
| Trust Response on 14:52 - Feb 13 by Darran |
Why are you asking me?🤷ðŸ¼â€â™‚ï¸ |
You posted the Trust material and I respect your knowledge. |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 18:17 - Feb 13 with 2092 views | Watchman |
| Trust Response on 15:25 - Feb 13 by JACKMANANDBOY |
IPS Law handled the sale for the sellouts, they are at the heart of the dispute, poor work by the DM not to realise this. By the look of it this is a small legal firm.
https://ipslaw.co.uk/about-us
[Post edited 13 Feb 2019 15:49]
|
they are a specialist niche firm |  |
| |
| Trust Response on 18:18 - Feb 13 with 2088 views | Smellyplumz |
| Trust Response on 18:14 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
You posted the Trust material and I respect your knowledge. |
I don't trust you one inch |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Trust Response on 18:19 - Feb 13 with 2077 views | 34dfgdf54 |
They seem a bit cowboy my liking, but what do I know. |  | | |
| Trust Response on 18:22 - Feb 13 with 2050 views | Darran |
| Trust Response on 18:14 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
You posted the Trust material and I respect your knowledge. |
Look Butt the Trust were happy to sit down with you sell out çunts and mediate like men now go away and stop trying to be a clever twà t. | |
| |
| Trust Response on 18:31 - Feb 13 with 2013 views | Badlands |
| Trust Response on 15:13 - Feb 13 by QJumpingJack |
It proves Levien has no respect for the Trust or fans.
The statement claims "Huw and others"
Who are the "others" for the record? |
I wouldn't expect Levien or Kaplan to turn up for this meeting surely they would have their representatives attend what will be the first of several sessions.
Once the wheels are in motion and the risk assessments can be made based on the direction the talks are going in then the main characters might become directly involved.
And, I doubt very much that any side can demand the attendance of any individual if the actions relate to groups - Trust, ISP, American Consortium.
isn't it legal posturing mainly between ISP and theTrust that is at the heart of the dispute?
Advice to the Trust is agree a date to meet with representatives. If they don't show then you have to go to the courts. | |
| |
| Trust Response on 18:42 - Feb 13 with 1985 views | jasper_T |
| Trust Response on 18:31 - Feb 13 by Badlands |
I wouldn't expect Levien or Kaplan to turn up for this meeting surely they would have their representatives attend what will be the first of several sessions.
Once the wheels are in motion and the risk assessments can be made based on the direction the talks are going in then the main characters might become directly involved.
And, I doubt very much that any side can demand the attendance of any individual if the actions relate to groups - Trust, ISP, American Consortium.
isn't it legal posturing mainly between ISP and theTrust that is at the heart of the dispute?
Advice to the Trust is agree a date to meet with representatives. If they don't show then you have to go to the courts. |
In mediation those representatives would have to be empowered to make binding decisions for Levein and Kaplan. Otherwise mediation can't accomplish anything and the process is pointless. Just "more talk" as the trust has been criticised for indulging in for the last year or so. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
