Get paid a load of cash, retain a shareholding, retain seats on the board and a guarantee that they'll be involved in any future sale.
The ones who sold the club for £100m did not **** anyone over then, is that what you are saying? I suppose at least they had the respect of the locals. David Conn does not seem to agree with you OLM about the old owners. They ****ed the club over....fact. "The supporters’ trust at Swansea City, for years praised as a model club run as a partnership with fans, has angrily criticised the chairman, Huw Jenkins, and other former shareholders for making millions of pounds by selling to US investors."
They sound ecstatic about that. Mind I suppose your just envisioning yourself and exiled at the top table and **** the rest. This is not our club anymore its the play thing of the amature sell their mother for a dollar yanks ! Aided and abetted by the traitors jenkins and trust etc ! We will get it back one day once theyved finished rinsing us just hope its not bankrupt when we do !
The Trust were shabbily treated during the sale, but I never mentioned the Trust, I said the club wasn't ****ed over. No refusal to use their name, no changing the badge, no removal of concessions, no withdrawal of player funds etc, etc. That David Conn article's over a year old, the matter has subsequently been resolved and Swansea fans have no idea how lucky they are.
I disagreed with the aim and thought it ridiculous under the circumstances, but o would certainly agree that, depending on your viewpoint, the whole matter was difficult to manage. What I find disappointing is the subsequent attendance at Allan propaganda events.
Ok I'll bite. I had a vote on the CTWD committee but I didn't promise anyone they would be published. The CTWD Committee did say we wouldn't sign a non-disclosure agreement which we didn't. You weren't at the meeting that decided not to publish so have no idea who said what and what arguments swayed the vote. There were two main arguments which I think resulted in the notes not being published. The first was some of the things Assem Allam said and the second was some of the things we said. As people have noted we were far too polite given what happened next. After bannergate the lines were more clearly drawn and we concentrated on the name change, which is what we were set up to do. The notes would have been an unwelcome distraction. I see in an earlier post who suggested deleting the references to Brady, so even you would have wanted them censored. Tut, tut.
I would have deleted that as it could be potentially libelous, if it's not then leave it in and **** it. Apart from that print the lot. So what were the things ctwd said that shouldn't be printed straightaway? It's nowt to do with being polite it was outright sucking up. No to the name change nothing else. Buying the club, mobilizing the fans ****ing hell. That would have damaged any protest group as some obviously had other agendas.
I cannot remember whether there were specific things identified it was a long time ago but don't recall specific examples. CTWD wasn't about mobilising the fans against the Council. I agreed with Geraghty and said so on CI at the time. I even had the piss taken out of me for suggesting Allam had rejected a joint venture from the Council to build the sports village. As far as I was concerned it was about the name and nothing else. Yes a strong supporters organisation may have helped move us towards a fan owned club but we were a long way from achieving that. Assem Allam could have helped achieve that but within weeks the battle lines had been drawn. As you said earlier both I and Exiled made our positions clear on fan ownership on CI immediately after the meeting. Wanting a supporters' owned club didn't damage CTWD. We helped persuade the FA to reject both application for a name change. We achieved what we set out to do. In hindsight I'm pleased we didn't publish the notes I had an hard enough time on here during the campaign without having to defend whether the attendees at the meeting were being polite or sucking up. On another point, the interest collected on the inter-company loans is around £14 million. All of which is profit.
I'm interested to know why, some of the people present at those initial meetings, continued to go to other meetings? Some quite a while afterwards too.
I have nothing more than a developing opinion and an awareness of what I have read on these and other threads and media articles, but I do find some of the comment strange. Since day one, I have believed that property development was, if not the crucial element of their Tigers ownership, it is certainly a key part of the business plan. There are some points I would like to share, some fact, some opinion that I believe are pertinent to this debate: 1. I cannot see how being transparent with your opinions and beliefs can be construed as moaning. Allam has made a £60M investment and he has every right to be vocal in trying to state his case; truth being, he would be insane not to do so. You don’t have to support with his position. He has invested for promotion and he must do everything he can to bring his plans to fruition. 2. Allam has already done a great deal to right the wrongs of previous owners – or is that now discounted? 3. Ours, along with all other inner city areas are in desperate need of redevelopment, job creation and social improvement. Why build Green-field when we have Brown-field crying out for development? 4. Allam has used the banner of ‘bringing sport into our lives’ to promote his ambitions for the club and the city; at the KC and beyond the Tigers, he appears to have continued to support that principle with his hard cash. 5. It seems to me to be massively hypocritical to criticise Allam for having a plan that will improve the social, cultural and financial standing of the city, when this criticism is done from a basis of supporting professional football and the financial madness that involves. Dolalleyfuckingtap! 6. Of course there is the option of supporting a council who, since the Second World War, have neglected huge areas of the city (we still have temporary housing built after the air-raids – any bomb-sites left, anyone?), squandered wonderful windfall fortunes and are now intellectually and (just about) financially bankrupt. 7. I can understand the concerns of some in not wanting the stadium sold into the hands of the Allam’s, but I don’t agree, because if it were not for the Allam’s, it would probably be in the hands of the Official Receiver, as it is hard to see what it could be used for had Hull City gone bust! Any ambition we have, as supporters, for the Tigers is and always will be interwoven with the ambition the city councillors should have to move forward in developing commerce, sport and prosperity within its elected remit. #241 Fez, Dec 20, 2012
Some of that was asking questions or posing options. Some was opinion held then, on the information available in December 2012; a very different scene then, with much different information available. I still agree that the principle of the stadium being owned by the club and the surrounding ground being developed would be acceptable under certain conditions - it wasn't long after that, as we understood more, that l changed my opinion of the Allams and their true nature. The council no longer know what to do with it and that is a big obstacle to progress. As for the good the Allams had done to that date - Dec 2012 - do you deny it? Matters soon got worse and I acknowledged that then and ever since, which is what many of us had to do, without the aid of a crystal ball. You seem to be selective and quite sad in equal measure, you have taken the trouble to find a very old outdated post in a very old conversation and posted it for whatever strange reason you may have. Good for you.
Good post... fair comment. People changed their mind about the Allam ownership at different points in time. That would be the main point, but thanks for the lecture anyhow. As for the good the Allams had done to that date - Dec 2012 - do you deny it?... Of course I deny it. I told you he was a massive cxxt back then and nothing since has caused me to change my mind. You're welcome.
