Total Entries: 63841 Entries Viewed Per Page: 10
There has been an understandable tendency on this forum and elsewhere to conflate two separate issues: the quality of the footballing decisions made by the board and Huw Jenkins in particular on the one hand, and the process by which the club was sold to the Americans on the other. By conflating these issues it makes it easy for the apologists for the old board to argue exclusively about the merits of the footballing decisions and conveniently side-step the much more serious issues around the ethical conduct of the old board.
Focussing exclusively on the ethics of the club sale, some big decisions lie ahead for the Trust. They have previously indicated that they would wait until the end of the season before taking action - that time is now upon us. This thread on Planet Swans intimates that QC advice will be forthcoming soon on the key question of the legality of the original Shareholder's Agreement: [www.fansnetwork.co.uk].
Without being privy to the discussions within the Trust I imagine that the ultimate goal of the Trust is to see a restitution of all the rights and entitlements that it had under the original Shareholders Agreement. It is also clear that the new owners will resist this - presumably because the original agreement conferred rights to the Trust that would significantly restrict the new owner's freedom to act as they see fit.
Where the Trust go from here will depend substantially on the strength of the case that they have, as advised by the QC that they've appointed. But, let's assume the worst case scenario - that they are advised that there is no prospect, or a weak one, of succeeding in any legal action against the previous owners, the new ones, or a combination of both. What then? In this eventuality the Trust's stake of just over 20% would have very little tangible value. The Trust would have a place on the board, but wouldn't be in a position to block any decisions taken by the Americans. At this point it would really make sense for the Trust to sell at least half of its holding. This would give the Trust the tangible pot of money it needs to fulfil it's main function - to be the saviour of last resort should the club get into difficulties. It makes sense to sell on a high, rather than hang on to the shareholding and see its value diminish massively should the club be relegated, or worse.
Assuming the best case scenario - that the Trust's case is rock solid., it still may be best for the Trust to sell some or all of its shares (my personal preference would be for a half sale, and retention of a place on the board). With a just over 20% shareholding, and no means of raising significant further funds, what effective power do the Trust have as it stands to contribute constructively to the club's future, as opposed to just obstructing the new owner's plans? I would urge the Trust to offer to sell half their shareholding, regardless of the advice they receive, but demand a premium over and above what the original sellers received, per share, to compensate the Trust for the diminution of their rights.
Should the new owners (or any combination of new and old) fail to offer a reasonable and fair settlement then they face being convicted in the court of fan opinion. That's where we come in. Let's be clear-headed here, and when the time comes, offer our unstinting support to the Trust to regain what was taken away or, alternatively, full and fair compensation for what they have lost.
As is clear from the responses of many on here, the old owners have suffered massive reputational damage already. So, if they have any regard for how they are perceived they will do their utmost to do the right thing by the Trust, and perhaps restore their tattered reputations in the process. We need to move on as a club - owners and supporters alike - and that can't be achieved by the owner's and their supporters maintaining the pretence that the Trust haven't been shafted. We, as fans, have an obligation to ensure that no airbrushing of this sordid episode in the club's history can be allowed to occur. Justice for the Trust.