Clearly your lift doesn't go to the top floor! or as some would say your an olive short of a Pizza!.................
They wanted out that's fair enough but they couldn't even be bothered to advertise the club for sale properly and get the best owners. All done behind the Trusts back as they knew they would object. Jenkins, Morgan, Dineen and all the others are in the same boat as Phillip Green as far as I am concerned. - christhejac/EP
A mate of mine has put an interesting slant on this when I was speaking to him today. Whilst not condoning Jenkins or the other Board members at all he raised two issues. Firstly, he was of the opinion that the hierarchy of the Trust haven't been assertive enough and as large % shareholders should have insisted on their involvement and been more proactive in decision taking instead of just bitching about it later because it's too late after the event. Secondly (and I'm more with him on this), why raise the issue now? Have they looked at the ****ing table? The time limit for any legal action has a long way to run and this could have been raised a little way down the track. If we have a resurgence and are mid table come January/February raise it then. Or even at the end of the season. No good can come from raising it now, only bad. It may well **** up morale at a critical time. I think he has a point.
Huws in the news! Link: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...sour-us-takeover-huw-jenkins?CMP=share_btn_tw
That was because Cooze became too friendly with Huw Jenkins, and still is after all that has come out?
I agree with part 2 of this, starting legal wars within the club is not the way to help us get back up the league. so agree. As for the first part in terms of the take over, I wonder how much they knew and when we thought they were off to S. America looking for a new manager they could have been heading to discuss the behind doors take over of the club. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the trust as I think so much has been done behind closed doors and very much on the sly.
Given that Swansea us a hotbed for gossip, I'm surprised the Trust seemingly didn't know about the Yanks..... I had learnt about it some weeks before the announcement - or did they not believe the rumours because they assumed that they would have been 'in the loop'?
You may well be right and I would imagine even if rumours, they should have been asking questions. Now we are where we are and I hope it is sorted soon without it causing issues on the field.
Kiff - if there is/was supposedly a Shareholders Agreement, I would have expected that such a document would/should cover inter alia fair and equitable treatment amongst the Shareholders, potentially pre-emption clauses, protecting minority interests etc etc etc - that certainly was the case in the Companies where I was on the Board. As such, possibly, the Trust and it's Board representative would have (reasonably) expected to be informed?
That's right Taff - but the point that was being made, and touched on by Phill, is that the hierarchy in the Trust have been too cosy with Jenkins and should have been more assertive in looking after the interests of the fans.
Kiff - that could well have been the case with the Trust's Board representative, but surely the other Trust "Leadership" members should have been raising the question(s) with and through Cooze? Nevertheless, and despite any possible cosying-up, the Trust had a reasonable (& legitimate) expectation of being informed. The question is "why the (alleged) secrecy?" Was it because, despite the Board's claims of the Club/Company needing outside investment, in reality this was purely and simply a share sale - with the cash going directly to shareholders and no new (at this juncture) cash into the Club?
Yep, quite possibly. I've always been sceptical of the use of the word 'investors' when it comes to football. There aren't many. Most are simply speculators.
Ever wondered why these scum have retained nominal share holding? Morgans still have 5% HJ still has 5% Katzen 1% LD Company 1% Why not Just clear off and leave us to sort the crap out? well that's the Million dollar question, and the answer is: These scum shareholders represent the necessary link that will enable the Yanks to purchase the Stadium, and for future borrowing purposes the stadium acquisition is a must. They have always stated that £100 million is going to be their initial investment or value of the club. They have currently spent approx £60 million to date .The balance is clearly to buy the stadium at some future point, they will then borrow against the stadium value to pay the remaining shareholders off, as and when it becomes necessary. Therefore the reason that these shares are still held by Jenkins and co is because the Yanks are not prepared to buy them out fully until the Stadium has been purchased. It is sickening to see these plonkers in the VIP stand looking out at us, I hope there is some appropriate singing from the North bank to make their presence an uncomfortable one, the more pressure we can put on them at every home game will force them to realise that the team cannot play well under such circumstances, and that would jeopardise their TV golden pot, lose that and the Yanks will be yesterdays news, I know some would not want this, but we have to some how force the issue, as the Trust have sleepwalked into this disaster, and we need to show the Scum on the board that we will not go quietly into the night............... PS: It might just get the board to realise how deeply resentful the Jack Army are of all this, and relent in giving or selling the magical and elusive 5% share the Trust need for the security of the supporter trust and club.
If Morgan and Jenkins want to redeem themselves, then all they have to do is give or sell 2% each to the Trust. we would be happy, they would be heroes again, it really is as simple as that, but will they do it? Not without pressure from us fans at every home game, we need sing this out to them loud and proud, to make their greedy arses uncomfortable as possible until they do, we are in the Premier league, on the world media stage, this would be very embarrassing to them and damaging to their own perceived squeaky clean image, they will buckle...................
Stankens and the " Clan " need to move on , although they've at least had their balls cut off.The Americans are probably not the answer but are chances with the new guard are better than with the old one .
But Phil, my understanding is that whilst they (Morgan, Jenkins etc.) have retained the shares, they have actually "sold" the voting rights of those shares to the Yanks - so the Trust can not secure 25% of voting rights to block any Special resolutions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37739815 "We respect the Trust" No you don't, you slimy faced, lying w@nkers.
Not sure that that applies to the Trust as they never signed the new Shareholders Agreement, and have taken council on the old one still being valid, but company law is a mine field and very rarely tested in court, though I do think the trust have a reasonable case, which they could talk to the FA as well...
Phil - Morgan, Jenkins et al have sold their voting rights, not the a Trust. So effectively 80-20. Enough for the Yanks to force through Special Resolutions!
