The yanks track record show they have no intention of spending their own money, they just take not give except to the sell outs early on ! Any appointment they make when jinx is usurped will make them nervous that the fan base is at last United against any more shysters taking our club for a ride again ?
As much as he’s interfered with the playing side & his incompetence over the last few years, I still distrust the Yanks even more. I really think he knows he’s fvcked up big time. But has got no power to do anything about it. I also think, he’s thinking, if he could turn back the clock he would... As much as he’s powerless, he’s also, apart from a few old pro’s at the club, the only link to what was good about this Club. I’m fearful, not about Jenkins’s plight, but the future of the club if he goes anytime soon. Believe me, I think it’ll be worse.. “What you wish for”, really comes to mind to me..
Why are you so afraid of sacking a paid employee of the Club for being incompetent? You were quite happy to see the manager sacked because of poor performance.
I believe he's winning some influence back from the yanks. After appointing Guidolin, who was unspectacular but kept us up in difficult circumstances, the Yanks took over and started the process of getting their own man in. When that went spectacularly wrong Clement popped up - Bayern, Chelsea etc appealed to people with limited knowledge of the game but seemed to fit the bill. (TBH I expected him to succeed.) Again, the Americans were happy for coaching changes (they control the finances) Clement brought in his people and Curtis was shoved out. With things in free fall this season Jenkins it seems would have sacked Clement much earlier but all he could do was put Leon in a position to support the failing manager in the hope his influence on the training ground would be as great as it had sen i=on the pitch at the end of last season. Possible replacements for Clement were available but would have asked astronomical fees. With options running out Jenkins went back to people he knew (Rodgers & possibly Martinez) but was knocked back so approached a manager he'd done research on at least twice before.
After the lies that Huw Jenkins put out in the media these last few days, the supporters Trust has now responded, and is now officially calling for his resignation, stating that he made a number of inaccuracies (lies), this looks like it could rumble on nicely and hopefully end up with the nugget actually going, his position is now untenable to say the least. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42528340 Let’s hope that the Trust now take legal action against the club, they will win in my view, It’s the best way of the Trust getting capital funds to insure against this shambolic takeover..............
Didn't the board try getting the Trust on side for a take over the previous year? If memory serves, and I may be completely wrong, the board alerted us to the possibility of having to cut expenditure and the need to bring in new money or sell shares but were knocked back. Interested parties walked away. I'd do (have done) the same as the board and, where there are influences who are not open to undertaking a necessary course of action, negotiated behind the scenes to a point proposals can be presented in full. In truth Jenkins, Morgans and others could, as private investors, have sold their shares without any reference to the Trust. Were things perfect? No. But the Trust was also in a state of flux at the time too.
Well done the Trust. Looks like they've been more active than previously thought. The uniting of the Trust, SCSA, Union etc should be enough unify the Jack Army in removing Judas. With this statement, they should also re ballot members on the legal action.
Basically they have after years of infighting, dithering and navel gazing been sparked into action to defend themselves. I stopped paying into the Trust years ago when it was obvious it was a committee to keep committee members in a committee. I can see how some supporters are rallying behind them now but tbh most of those were slagging them off not so long ago. As I keep saying - it's easy to attack someone but what is being proposed as an alternative?
1. Bring in a chairman with the right experience/qualities to run a PL football club and it's business side of things 2. Bring in a director of football to ensure the Swansea Way remains in tact by overhauling the scouting network and identifying players/future managers that fit our way of play etc
That's the issue - The Shareholders Agreement contained a Pre-Emption Clause - anyone wishing to sell would have to offer them first to existing Shareholders......
I along with other Trust members have just received this email please log in to view this image News from the Trust please log in to view this image Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What a result yesterday and our congratulations to Carlos Carvalhal and all the coaching and playing staff. Credit also to the travelling Jackarmy at Watford for great vocal support throughout the game. This is clearly an important result as we move into a tough looking January schedule and hopefully it will be the start of an upturn in our playing fortunes. Following such a great day yesterday it was particularly disappointing to have to return our attention to addressing some serious inaccuracies in an interview the Club Chairman, Huw Jenkins gave to the media on Friday. In particular his version of events surrounding the sale of shares in the Club to the American Consortium last year. You can read our full response to the interview on the Trust website. We thought it would be helpful to our members if we picked out a few key points in the interview and outlined our response. Huw Jenkins in interview: 'a lot of discussions went on legally behind the scenes up to about February 2016 to when a terms sheet and formal structure of a possible deal was put together.' Trust response: The Memorandum of Agreement, which outline the formal structure of the deal and subsequently seen by the Trust, is actually dated 5 December 2015. The Trust received a draft copy of a Share Purchase Agreement on 28 March 2016, however both documents clearly shows the Trust as having no part in the deal. Huw Jenkins in interview: (following reference to the Aston Villa game on 19 March 2016) 'There was then a meeting held on the Saturday morning of the game, with the Trust – who had four members and legal representation present – and two of our shareholders, to try and convince the Trust to sell 11% (of their shareholding in the deal).' Trust response: There was no meeting involving the Trust ahead of the game on 19 March. Three members of the Trust Board had requested a meeting with Huw Jenkins earlier that week having become aware of the ongoing discussions with the Americans. No legal representation was present and no offer to buy shares was made. The first time a legal representative of the Trust was at any such meeting was on the morning of the Chelsea game (9 April 2016) to meet with Jason Levien, representing the American consortium. The discussion centred on the relationship the new owners would have with the Trust. Again there was no offer to buy any Trust shares. A subsequent meeting with two other shareholders that day centred as much on an alternative investment interest as much as anything. Huw Jenkins in interview “The way it’s been put out in many statements and parts of media coverage that they were unaware of the deal is just not true'. Trust response: We have repeatedly acknowledged that we became aware of the deal in March 2016. It is clear however that detailed discussions around the deal were ongoing for many months before that leading up to the Memorandum of Agreement being prepared as early as 5 December 2015. The Trust, and allegedly some of the other shareholders, were unaware of the discussions going on prior to March 2016. That is simply a fact. Huw Jenkins in interview (commenting on the period March-July 2016) “During that period, anything could have changed, any permutations of selling shares could have changed to suit anybody including the Supporters’ Trust." Trust response: At no point during the four month period prior to the completion of the sale was any offer made to purchase Trust shares or to include the Trust in the ongoing discussions with the Americans about the deal. The reference in the interview to ‘it was hard work with all shareholders just to get a deal together’ is inaccurate in that all shareholders were not involved in such discussions. It is clear on our part that Huw Jenkins’ focus during this period was on those shareholders who had been identified as early as December 2015 as being part of the deal, not the Supporters’ Trust. We await any response and reaction to our statement and will keep members advised. We also expect to be able to let you have a full update later this week on the proposed sale of some of the Trust shares. In the meantime however an opportunity to wish you all a very happy and healthy 2018.
Again why not mention the fact that a Chinese consortium was very interested in "investing" (not buying the then current share holders shares ) in which a new trance of shares would have been issued , that would have put money into the Club exactly the type of investment that Jenkins is bleating about now.. The other investors Moores and Noelle after due diligence by the Trust ( a duty in which they are entrusted with to perform and something Jenkins and co are now known not to have carried out) dismissed them as not suitable .You say you'd have done the same as the old Board , which really says an awful lot about your ethics
An alternative could be a Non-Executive Chairman, with Huw's Executive duties shared out between a 'Professional' Director of Football and a Chief Operating Officer (Pearlman is in place already). Such a structure would be better than what we currently have, in my opinion. As usual, other opinions are welcome and are equally valid.
1) That's a bit like saying bring in a manager with he right experience/qualities etc. 2) That went with Monk. Agree about the scouting network but again that takes time and money. We were getting gems before the fall out with Laudrup and Tutumlu. I blame Jenkins for that and for listening to players.
As Taff has said, Pearlman is already in place to take over the running of the business side of things. Were we getting gems under Laudrup? Other than Michu, the rest were average/one season wonders imo.
The Fact is the Americans have far to much power now and there is far too much infighting between different fan groups that quite frankly are pretty worthless today...They have been rabbiting on and coming out with statements that they fail to do anything about because they know they cannot beat the owners and never will.....As much as i want to see a new chairman then to call for Jenkins head is playing into the hands of the Americans who will fill their chairmans position with one of their own...Make no mistake about that......They have done that through the backdoor anyway when they appointed pearlman.... Jenkins has been more than nieve and has been duped by the yanks just as much as everyone and for that should be replaced but we will end up totally run by Americans as they draft in one of their own.....As for all these fans groups then im sure the yanks are going to lose any sleep over those....They have far to much power now ....
Don’t think most Swans’ fans have been ‘duped’ by the Americans. Had a strong feeling it would all transpire this way, long before they took over. No Premier League club have really benefited from American ownership, maybe Liverpool under FSG..
