Just the start

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I'm afraid there's more than two, Dineen is employed as a "consultant" so it'll be interesting to see if he starts getting some well deserved abuse, also M Morgan has gone under the radar as well The yanks is the biggest problem but not unsurmountable, although imo it looks like we've a lot further to fall yet
Consultant my arse!! He was piss poor with marketing and the commercial department.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragonPhilljack
Consultant my arse!! He was piss poor with marketing and the commercial department.
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
 
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

Breaking news: Yanks have approached Dai to offer him the Chairmanship of SCFC. <cheers>
 
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.....................<ok>
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Taffvalerowdy
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.....................<ok>
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 <cheers>
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragonPhilljack
But they’ve already had top dollar (in more ways than one!) for the shares they sold - and they sold the majority of their shareholding’s <cheers>





They are all (Old Board) holding about 5% shares, Martin Morgan a lot more!.......................<ok>
 
They are all (Old Board) holding about 5% shares, Martin Morgan a lot more!.......................<ok>
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 <cheers>
 
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 <cheers>




And the Trust are the second largest shareholder!!! About time we started showing it...........................<ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taffvalerowdy
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 <cheers>









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!!!.........................<ok>
 
And the Trust are the second largest shareholder!!! About time we started showing it...........................<ok>
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragonPhilljack
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!!!.........................<ok>
There’s probably a pre-emption clause, allowing the Yanks to buy their proportionate share.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DragonPhilljack
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DragonPhilljack
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