Valley as a full trust member we do have money but nowhere near enough to play with the big boys. I have said many times on here that the trust have no power on virtually anything and is just a means of voicing an opinion through the Trust board member. He dont have any vote or say in anything other than an opinion and contrary what is being said on here depending on the financial deal with the new share holders it could and i mean could water down the amount of shares the trust owns, I hope that dont happen i really do but it could.
Dai - unless new shares are issued, which the Trust do not buy, could you please explain how the Trust's shareholding would be diluted?
The Trust could easily raise money through the Jack army if they so wished, I would love to have gone to the meeting tonight but events conspired against me, though I have sent a well worded email to the trust regarding these Yanks. Not sure if it's me, but I smell a story of boardroom directors who have gone rogue! and the reason we are getting very little info is that the remaining board members are putting a brave face on it all and trying to make the best of a bad situation. I do not see the need for this mad dash to bring in one very dubious Yankee fiddler, if the board need to tender for a replacement member then surely they should take it to the market and get someone in of more principled charecter..................................
Its so complicated i really cant explain but this was all set up in 2001 but if you can make the meeting on Friday im sure someone will explain to you. as an example we use to own 22% and i had an e-Mail well before xmas that it has gone down 1% to 21%.....
The trust is made up of just ordinary fans like you and me and not powerful businessmen like the board members. A seat on the board was a reward for raising money to help save the club which in no way had any vote or power that the chairman and directors have....Our man Leigh Dineen was rightly chosen to speak for the fans. he is a great guy and a passionate fan who has a seat in the directors box. It is a very complicated set up with clauses upon clauses written in to the trust terms and conditions. whatever money you or i put in is put into a pot and you might as well write it off as you will never see it again. i put x amount in in 2001 but i knew i would not see it again but i was passionate with saving the club and im happy with that. Today i must trust the present board members on what they are trying to do and have to accept their choices whether i like the idea or not.....Nobody knows what lays ahead in the future and as i have no say or control over the situation then i have no choice other than put my full backing behind those who have the control and hope they know what they are doing and i have no reason to question their judgement
I think Huw Jenkins is following you Dai, you both have lost it in my opinion............................
Maybe I'm being unfair but it does seem those in charge seem to have allowed greed to bring on collective amnesia over the Petty era.
I do feel as though we are being stalked and Moore wont be the last to peep into our bedroom window, if he's unsuccessful in his takeover attempt. But, what we all need is the truth so we can justify our fears and decide whether its a good thing to let him in, or not. Currently my fears err on the side of caution and I sympathise with Dragons side of the debate, although Dai has spoken a lot of sense too. While I appreciate Dai's point of view, I can't buy it. Waiting and hoping everything will turn out well simply because that's how you want it to turn out is a bit Disney to me. We have built it Dai and they have come but our film doesn't end there, now we have to seize on their arrival for our benefit and all involved in the club and to do this we must question and not simply accept. Needing to know, I read the links, and more, Dragon provided for us which has lead me to question his interpretation of them relating to Moore being a very naughty boy, I wont use the C word. sorry Dragon From the links Dragon provided, there is little in the way of verifiable facts, nothing, absolute zero. Plenty of 'he said she said' quotes and accusations but nothing which could be checked or proven, in other words, here say. The reports give only one side of the argument too, appearing to synchronise already established dogmas with matching assumptions and conclusions, the bottom line we are being told being 'Moore is rich ergo Moore is a crook' backed up by 'bully got away with it' and 'little guy pays again'. Scenarios we commonly use to reflect and justify our innate belief that poor is small is good, oppressed and pious while rich is big is bad is obsessed and wicked. I noticed too the 'Death through accusation' reports, in the majority, were packed with thoughts and quotes from the 'losing parties'; whether accused or those representing, with nothing from any other source. If you go further into it other quotes and reports appear to came from Moore's competitors (naturally suspicious) and re-quotes used to fill out a piece by buoyed reporters given the opportunity to 'stretch a story' and make a buck. The reports shout a lot and are full of noise and sound bites from the losing parties and agencies designed to tarnish the name of anyone in the hope that some accusation will stick thus reducing the impact of their own involvement in the crime. This has a name these days and its called an 'Armstrong Defence'. Stems from Neil Armstrong blaming everyone else for his misdeeds when conning the world, "Every one was doing it, I was only trying to keep up with them". Lets stick to reality with no more bull about crooks or desert Island, stogie smoking villains, the only question we need to ask right now is: Why? and hope the due diligence is ongoing.
I think I get what you are saying Stump, but if there is a hint of wrong doing by these guys I want them nowhere near this club. To many clubs have in the past allowed people in to clubs who have passed the fit and proper person and look what has happened to their clubs. Ask Birmingham, Portsmouth, Hearts and even Villa to an extent what they think. I also could list lots of great investors at clubs. It is just to much of a worry for me so why take a chance. I am with Phil on this and want our club to remain our club no matter where we end up in the future. The one thing these Yanks can't guarantee us is progress or success, So why bother with them.
Stumpy the facts are out there regarding John Moores, and at best he is a ruthless venture capitalist that fictiously inflates company performance to maximise his share value before it colapses. To me that's very questionable and the fact that only he 'got away with it' while all his lieutenants served prison term is of no comfort to the 1400 families that lost their jobs while under his watch, the fact that he is a big contributer to the democrats served him well in all this, lets just say I know how flexible the system can be where money people are concerned, he's a vulture of the highest order and the Padres fans will also confirm this too.
Unfortunately it`s out of our hands, the trust have no say at all. If any board member (shareholder) who "sells" their shares, then they simply are not Swans fans. Wasn`t it only last year they all had a big share-out. That`s obviously not enough for some greedy so and so`s. Yes, they helped to save the club along with a lot of ordinary fans putting their £`s into the buckets, all of this now counts for naught. It appears to be too late now for our structure to be held up as fan power. The rich keep getting richer, and the rest of us just keep getting old.
