Twats !!! (not Bovi and JacksAway)

Discussion in 'Swansea City' started by ExpatJack, 21 Jul 2017.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. ExpatJack

    ExpatJack
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    Twats No 1

    The Yanks and Jenkins are blackmailing the Trust.

    They are willing to buy 5 % of the Trust shares (up to 10,5 %) and in return the Trust would be required to drop any legal action relating to last summer’s takeover.

    There is more:

    1. The Trust should reinvest 20% in the club.
    2. The Trust would be required to sell some of the shares to Jenkins.

    Twats No 2

    The Trust board have recommended members support the sale, but a final decision will only be taken once all members vote in the ballot

    Trust members set to vote over Swansea City share sale
     
    #1 ExpatJack, 21 Jul 2017
    Last edited: 21 Jul 2017
    Spratty likes this.
  2. Jacks Away

    Jacks Away
    Expand Collapse
    Current poster of the year

    Much bigger twats than me,not quite sure about Bovril though.
     
  3. Yankee_Jack

    Yankee_Jack
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    As posted above I would vote no. None of it makes any economic sense, and I am utterly against giving Jenkins a bigger interest in the Club.
     
  4. Boundy Still Lurks

    Boundy Still Lurks
    Expand Collapse
    Super Moderator

    The paperwork arrived yesterday but I've not yet had a chance to study it in detail , what ever decision we make it's going to impact on the way the Club is run someway in the near future .
     
    Swimaway and Yankee_Jack like this.
  5. Mithrandir

    Mithrandir
    Expand Collapse
    Istari Swan

    I would vote against it for that reason and for that reason only. I don't care how good the deal was, giving Jenkins a bigger interest in the Club is a horrible, horrible idea.
     
  6. Swimaway

    Swimaway
    Expand Collapse
    Cygnus Olor Rex

    It does also make you question IF they have any more real money behind them or confidence in the club? If so, why would they want to allow Jenkins (who is not going to or able to invest millions) get a bigger grip and dilute the reward/risk opportunity?
    Is that why they need the fans to pay for infastructure?

    Its a deal, but imho something isnt quite right about the whole thing.
     
  7. Ivoralljack

    Ivoralljack
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    Got my paperwork as well but, like Boundy, yet to read it. However, I can say now that any proposal that negates us entering litigation should we need to, gets a firm NO from me. As for allowing Idiot to acquire more shares, the only thing that I'd like to give him is a firm kick up the arse........ quite a few fcuking times.
     
  8. Jacks Away

    Jacks Away
    Expand Collapse
    Current poster of the year

    Wish you all the best,don't let them screw you over,we are Swansea City to the core,we matter,good luck.
     
    Neveroffsideref likes this.
  9. Swimaway

    Swimaway
    Expand Collapse
    Cygnus Olor Rex

    A penny for Mel Nurse's thoughts?

    Does the whole house of cards unravel if there is a no vote?
    Is that the true reason it is 'recommended'?


    Good luck to all those voting, whatever you decide. You have my trust that whatever the democratic decision, it will be the correct one and get my backing....which is ironic since I have less trust in the Trust board.
     
    Cockneyswan likes this.
  10. Swimaway

    Swimaway
    Expand Collapse
    Cygnus Olor Rex

    Swansea City: Investment would need fans approval - Huw Jenkins

    ""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make."
    Huw Jenkins 2014

    BULLSHIT!
     
    Spratty, smudger, IanABS94 and 4 others like this.
  11. Yankee_Jack

    Yankee_Jack
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    I don't know how impactful the Trust's vote is on whatever board it sits, but selling shares is going to reduce that. And, I don't see any benefit in doing that. We want to have influence now and be able to build alliances with smaller shareholders as necessary to express our point of view. We may not be able to exert control, but we want our opinion and influence to carry as much weight as possible.
     
  12. notrac

    notrac
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    The only real weight that the Trust has now, is the threat of litigation.This obviously worries the Americans,as they have made offers which they wouldn't normally need to make, having regard to their overall majority dominance.
    The fact that they have used Jenkins in the proposed Trust share purchase,knowing the Trust members feelings about him is strange.
    The worry about litigation is that it is all or nothing.If the Trust wins, all shares have to be sold.This is something that the Trust themselves don't want to happen.
    There is the suggestion that by going down the litigation route, this could force a better deal out of the Americans. The worry here is that if the American owners sell to a third party before litigation completion, the Trust would be isolated and would have lost out once again from a share sale which would probably be even more lucrative than the original.
    Also a negative decision at litigation would render the shares almost worthless,and would probably signal the end of the Trust.
    This is not an easy decision to make. I personally feel that it is better to take what is on offer than go into the unknown.I have witnessed many examples of Barristers positive opinions becoming less and less certain the nearer a hearing date.
    Just to clarify ExpatJacks opening introduction.The suggestion is to initially purchase 5% of the club shares from the Trust.As the Trust owns 21% , this would mean that the offer is for approximately a quarter of the Trusts shares. The price payable would be the same as paid to the other shareholders plus an addition for possible increased value.The Trust would then own about 16%.The suggestions then are to purchase a further quarter over five years leaving the Trust with 10% approx.
    However this final 10% would have to be sold eventually if the Americans sold out,with a guaranteed selling price equivalent to what the Americans would get.
    If the above happened the overall proceeds of the Trust's shares would be far higher than the £21m estimated from litigation.
     
    #12 notrac, 22 Jul 2017
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2017
  13. Yankee_Jack

    Yankee_Jack
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    Still against any increase in ownership to Jenkins. My understanding on litigation was the the threat applied to the old selling shareholders / Executives and not the new owners.
     
    Mithrandir likes this.
  14. Bovi

    Bovi
    Expand Collapse
    Twat

    The offers a joke

    Anyone voting to accept that is a Fucking Wanker

    Jacks AwayJacks Away is the biggest twat in the universe. There are monkeys in Peru with more Fucking sense
     
  15. Jacks Away

    Jacks Away
    Expand Collapse
    Current poster of the year

    How did you know I was the president chimp in Peru,fuck you do you're homework.
     
  16. ExpatJack

    ExpatJack
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    I thought the Trust wanted to sell their shares. Will you elaborate, please?

    Well it is possible to block the sale to a third party until litigation completion.

    A negative decision at litigation would mean that the Trust's shares will be worth as much as they are worth right now. Which is not much.

    That's exactly what the Yanks and Jenkins want.

    A good Barrister can accurately predict the outcome of your case.

    Exactly. They obviously know that the Trust have a case.

    I agree with YAWAMIWSYAWAMIWS that something is wrong:

    1. If the Yanks want to do the right thing why don't they buy all Trust's shares?
    2. Why don't they buy all shares?
    3. Why instalments? First 5 %, then 0,5 % in the next five years? Don't they have any money left?
    4. Why do they want to force the Trust to reinvest 20 % of the sold shares into the club?
    5. Why do they want to force the Trust to sell some of its shares to Jenkins?
    6. What the fuck is going on?
     
  17. Mithrandir

    Mithrandir
    Expand Collapse
    Istari Swan

    This is indeed worrying. If I'm not mistaken, the Yanks haven't actually put any of their own money into the actual Club yet (at least as far as playing staff).

    All last summer's and winter's purchases were more or less funded by the Ash and Ayew sales. The Mesa signing was almost completely covered by the Cork sale which followed Mesa's signing. It doesn't look like we're making any other moves in the market unless Gylfi is sold.

    Maybe the owners are looking to issue some additional shares to themselves in stages to raise capital but want to have an agreement with the Trust in place first? I don't know, this is a little worrying.
     
    ExpatJack likes this.
  18. Bovi

    Bovi
    Expand Collapse
    Twat

    You in the bog

     
  19. Spratty

    Spratty
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    Good to see this raised here. Was recently checking out for any discussions on here relating to the offer but not seeing any so posted on PS yesterday (21st) but immediately banned after questioning ….

    given the Trust Chairman has previously written about the threat of share dilution ……

    Unfortunately, short term protection without any form of long term protection is not something we could work with

    Why amazingly the Trust is now recommending a deal that does not even gives us short term protection against share dilution.


    I had not even started on my concerns re misdirection made by Board member posts on PS – some of the more concerning examples……

    that Counsel’s suggestion to look at resolving out of court before proceeding with legal action could indicate a weakness in our case – when it is basic common sense and standard procedure however strong your case

    that there is seemingly a “slam dunk” category of case strength which relegates a case declared as strong by senior Counsel (after lengthy and detailed consideration) to the realms of pretty dodgy

    that drag rights were anything other than a vehicle whereby the new majority owners have absolute power to force us to sell our complete shareholding at a time and price of their choosing – thus putting our future in their hands

    that the court action will in no way impact on the sellouts – when it will as a minimum involve public scrutiny of the impact of the actions they facilitated to shaft the Trust, especially given HJ prominent position both then and now

    that the recent renaissance in relationships with the new owners is anything other than window dressing until acceptance of the deal frees them from legal action

    That Trust Board members didn’t know the reasons each other were supporting acceptance of this derisory offer – astounding surely as a matter of sound process they would have discussed everyone’s concerns for each alternative option in excruciating detail, before deciding if to recommend any option to members (with due regard to their responsibility for the influence such an action would command with many members).

    Vigorously and repeatedly supporting the recommended option (at all costs and with scant regard to balance) on the Trust Chairs personal website. Sweeping aside challenges to this recommended option, with all the arrogance that has become the trademark of the Trust in recent actions.


    This was the first time I have posted there since being summarily banned some months ago for once again questioning why the Trust Chairs personal website should have preferential access over other sites to information from Board members

    I honestly think it pretty scandalous that once again the Trust Chair is trying to repeatedly silence inconvenient truths in relation to valid questions supported by evidence. Censorship of valid questions by Trust Members on a site personally owned by the Trust Chair that is (inappropriately) given preferential access to Trust business is totally unacceptable on so many levels. So much more so when we are at a time of such a massively defining decision for the Trust.
     
    ExpatJack likes this.
  20. Spratty

    Spratty
    Expand Collapse
    Jack Bastard

    Sorry if I have misunderstood but how would this be the case, if we hit the skids then the Americans will activate their get out plan - will get everything they can out of the club and will sell the club for whatever they can, this could end up being much much lower than what we get from litigation.

    In the meantime litigation with us will put a major downer on people wanting to buy the club - they will not want that and will want to settle, but for as little as possible. They must be delighted the Trust have recommended acceptance of this derisory offer.
     
    Cockneyswan and ExpatJack like this.

Share This Page