Simon Davies@simondavies45 11m11 minutes ago With Huw Jenkins stepping as down as Swansea chairman, speculation that Leigh Dineen has done/will do the same. Interestingly tonight, he’s removed his ‘Vice Chairman’ title from both his Twitter & LinkedIn profiles 12:43 pm - 2 Feb 2019
Make no mistake, you make your bed and you lie on it, trouble is the boardroom is clearly split between the old and new, battle lines have now been drawn, and you cannot rule out anything, I fully expect Martin Morgan to try and put together a consortium to get rid of the Yanks, the old board will not sit back and watch their share value turn into junk shares because of some two bit Yankee spivs.....................
But they’ve already had top dollar (in more ways than one!) for the shares they sold - and they sold the majority of their shareholdings
Sums up Jenkins perfectly Huw Jenkins leaves @SwansOfficial. He did right initially, he did wrong when the opportunity of personal gain presented itself. He leaves a rich man. The club will pick up the pieces of his flawed reign. A small time businessman escalated into Premier League riches, and drowned
Phil, the Yanks own 68%. The Supporters Trust retained its 21% stake in the club, while Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan each kept 5% shareholdings and Leigh Dineen kept a 1% stake. That’s how the shares are distributed
And the Trust are the second largest shareholder!!! About time we started showing it...........................
Jinx kept 5% but assigned the voting rights of that 5% to the yanks. No doubt that agreement will include a provision on what happens to the voting rights should the 5% be sold on? The Trust need to tap into those shares!!!.........................
I believe the Trust lost its voting rights when the Club was sold so litigation is the only way forward but that comes at a price , so far costs have amounted to over a hundred thousand in legal fees (for obtaining legal advice) and with a balance of 800,000k in the bank it should be considered that it could cost us the supporters everything should we lose any court battle, but we could also win much more
I don’t believe the Trust lost voting Rights attaching to its shares. What allegedly happened is that the original Shareholders Agreement was ignored, meaning that the Trust was illegally/unrightly excluded from discussions etc allegedly!
Perhaps I worded it incorrectly but basically when the sellers and yanks colluded they effectively removed the Trust voting strength by " It was at this time that the reality of what the selling shareholders and buyers had agreed became fully clear. Whilst some previous shareholders retained a small stake in the football club, they had largely signed over their voting rights to the buyers. That meant that the buyers had control of over 75% of the voting rights of the football club. Along with the collusion and deception, it was particularly disappointing to see the levels to which our former business partners had stooped" Taken from the Trust minutes of the forum meeting October 20, 2016
