Swans Trust - Notice of AGM

edited January 7 in Swansea City

The 18th Annual General Meeting of Swansea City Supporters Society Ltd (Swans Trust) will be held at the Liberty Stadium, Swansea on Monday 28th January, 2019 commencing at 7.30pm.

Should any member wish to put a Notice of Motion forward please send via email to info@swanstrust.co.uk by Monday 14th January, 2019.

Comments

  • edited January 14
    Interesting news...

    Notice is hereby given that the 18th Annual General Meeting of Swansea City Supporters Society Ltd (Swans Trust) will be held at the Liberty Stadium, Swansea on Monday 28th January, 2019 commencing at 7.30pm. 

    AGENDA      

    APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE.

    1. WELCOME FROM THE SECRETARY TO THE MEMBERS PRESENT.

    2. MINUTES OF THE 17TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.

    3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES.

    4. CHAIRMANS ADDRESS.

    5. TREASURER’S REPORT.

    6. APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS.

    7. CONFIRMATION OF OFFICERS, BOARD MEMBERS,  AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR APPOINTMENTS.

    8. NOTICES OF MOTION PROPOSED BY TRUST MEMBER ROGER BRACE.

    1. Amendment to the Model Rules 2016 that any Member of the Trust shall be entitled to view any Document of the Trust on giving 14 days notice of that intention.

    2.  That Authority is given by the Members of the Trust for the continuance of the legal  claims against Huw Jenkins, Mrs. Louisa Morgan and others being the vendor shareholders in share transfers dated 21st July 2016 and 11th June 2017 together with such other parties as appropriate on the proviso that the Trust’s Legal advisers confirm a reasonable prospect of success in the litigation and to incur professional fee costs including value added tax up to an initial amount of £300,000 and further to allocate sufficient funds from the Trust’s Reserves to meet that expenditure.

    9. OPEN FORUM BY MEMBERS PRESENT.

    BY ORDER OF THE SOCIETY BOARD.

    NIGEL HAMER

    SECRETARY

    14th January, 2019


  • Those 2 motions are interesting.

    I understand the first one but, without having heard the arguments for and against, from where I sit this this morning, I don't see it is a good idea as there could be lots of confidential issues that may be inappropriate to share.

    And I don't fully understand the second one, it's impact on the mediation process, or why it's needed at all.

    I've just emailed the Trust to ask if we are going to receive any documentation in support of the motions or whether it's all done on the night. It would be nice to see some justification from the proposer beforehand and also the Trust Board's counter-view if they have one - I'd like to understand both issues better and have thinking time ahead of any vote.

    I remember @StephenR mentioning discussions with Roger Brace on the Trust's Facebook group. If we have anybody who are members of that group, have these motions been bounced around and discussed on there ?
  • I understand the motion 1 as we would be allowed to view the documents if they were available, which obviously they are not.
    Motion 2 shows what was done as shares were transferred in 16 and 17  not all in one go, which probably indicates part payment which everyone believes, in other words the Yanks didn't have the money and needed to get hold of the club to generate money through the club to pay off in stages HJ and co, not sure if this includes the 28 investors who either paid Kaplan and levien for their part shares because it certainly didn't go to the club, this at the exact time that non players wages rocketed. I firmly believe that HJ has never had a massive one off payment and that he is being paid through a salary and fees to pay for his shares, these Yanks I firmly believe have parted with not one single penny of their own money at any stage and that is why they are desperate not to show one single breakdown of anything non playing. At this stage 2 years on, most people have now been paid off and profit pocketed, there are still 2 big parachute payments to come and if they can survive this period they will stay provided they are still making money and the football club holds its own, failing that they will off load as many as possible and sell the crown jewels 
  • so are you saying Philip that the way the old shareholders are getting paid for their share sale is through a salary type of set up, and the US guys have not paid a penny upfront, just through milking our club - that is very shocking but yes, makes sense. Absolute disgrace and we've been had, the fans. To think, we've off loaded almost an entire playing squad so that Jenkins and chums get their salary paid and the US get a free club.
     
  • MarkG said:
    so are you saying Philip that the way the old shareholders are getting paid for their share sale is through a salary type of set up, and the US guys have not paid a penny upfront, just through milking our club - that is very shocking but yes, makes sense. Absolute disgrace and we've been had, the fans. To think, we've off loaded almost an entire playing squad so that Jenkins and chums get their salary paid and the US get a free club.
     
    That's exactly what I am saying, although I cant prove it wouldn't it be fantastic if we could all see HJ, Morgan etc personal accounts for the last 3 years to see what they got paid and how often and to how many associate companies they or their families are linked to. Why would anyone in their right mind pay someone 60M upfront for making a complete ball's up for two years and pay them a salary of 666K a year to stay as chairman, why are the same people still major shareholders in the company and bigger shareholders in the subsidiary companies. Why did they stop trading as the 2002 company and switch back to the Association company in 2016 ( so that they had 100%) and not 79%, therefore not having to disclose to the trust or public. Remember these all get paid through all the companies whether its salaries or fees. The players salary having to be cut massively in their statement obviously appeals to most fans as they genuinely believe that is where all the money goes, for over 3 years the non playing employee's has risen above anyone else, with the totals of all employees put in the holding companies accounts, remember nearly all the people who buy tickets and merchandise are doing so not through the football club but the stadium company which had a change of shareholders in 2016 also. they show administration costs but no wages, Premier club likewise. There are huge sums of money being transferred from one to another but without disclosure, these clever people can hide the true extent of profiting until the last drop has gone, Why does Pearlman earn (we think) 700K+ when he cant even get commercial investment higher than his salary, where is all the profit shown on shirt sales, other merchandising, franchising etc etc, they are not even shown, only income in XXX amount and expenditure XXX amount all at a loss. In 2014 we were showing a loss of 13M but never showed what was owed to us, over 30M in transfer sales, and accounts submitted 2 weeks before TV money came in, how convenient, that's when it started and its escalated each year, Come on Huw, show us what you and the Yanks have done, write it down, if its all a cock up fine we can live with incompetence    
  • Swansea City Football 2002 Limited, number 04305508
    Confirmation of List of shareholders October 2018
    David Morgan-1
    Supporters Trust-199,999
    Huw Jenkins-47,500
    OTH 2015 Ltd-225,000(Louise Morgan and Martin Morgan, declaration of solvency in January 2018)
    Swansea Football LLC-420,500
    Martin Morgan-23,750
    Louise Morgan-23,750
    Brian Katzen-9,500

    Swansea City Association Football Club Limited(THE), number 00123414
    5 charges to banks still outstanding
    8 Officers named
    Gareth Davies
    R Chaudhari
    Robert H Eastman
    H Jenkins
    S Kaplan
    J Levien
    S McDonald
    M Morgan

    Swansea City Football Club Limited, number 04056708
    from May 206 the company was exempt from audit because of small companies act.
    Officers involved, 
    A Cowie
    H Jenkins
    S Kaplan
    J Levien


  • Phillip, please make sure the Trust know this cos i'm not sure they do. It all kind of neatly explains why we dont have a pot to piss in player recruitment wise. If true, HJ should emigrate and never step foot in south wales ever again.
  • I did bring it up at the last Trust meeting but not in detail, there did seem to be a little confusion but it was obvious the legal guy was looking in to it.
    It is extremely difficult for the Trust to get any disclosure on breakdowns.
    They (Yanks) will hold out, fight by making legal argument last, hoping the Trust run out of funds.
    The sale of shares is their best option in my opinion, there must be a massive discrepancy in what was said to the Trust and what actually went on, as 21% shareholders the Trust should have been involved in the due diligence process, they weren't, its unprecedented that they had no input and if they really had money to invest, why pay alleged payments of say 60M for 79% when for say another 15M could take the lot. Answer they never had 15M in funds for the Trust let alone 60M for HJ and crew. Its all been funded from the club and still is.
    I have been saying and writing this for over 2 years, if its slander or libel surely someone would have come out in the open and say where the money is going and not hide behind its all down to the players wages, it isn't.    
  • The near £70m was offered to buy the shares of the selling shareholders, what should have happened is that that near £70m should have been offered to all shareholders on a pro rata basis, it would have meant less for those that sold and for me, that is the root of the problem, sellers got greedy and used the Trusts statement that it’s preferred option was not to sell as an excuse, morally dispicable but ileagal, only a court can decide.
    The Americans, and JL in particular saying on audio that he was told by the sellers not to engage with the Trust is a massive own goal, and if the trust has proof that the original shareholders agreement Is valid then for me, both parties have screwed up.
    i don’t buy into you’re conspiracy Phillip.
  • Unfortunately I DO buy into Phillip's "conspiracy" theory. It seems clear that the lack of transparency is for a purpose, and the flow of funds in contracts organised through an entity where the Trust have no visibility is no coincidence.

    If, as we are led to believe, the Americans are shrewd operators they would not keep paying excessive salaries to failing executives unless there was an ulterior motive, and the rapid escalation and exorbitant ratio of non playing staff salaries is indicative of palms being greased.

    Until we (through our Trust representatives) are given transparency on the operations of the club that we own 21% of, I for one will continue to push for a day of reckoning at the High Court. @Jac (above) points out some of the reasons why I believe the Trust to hold a winning hand.
     However, there is a point of principle at hand - the club that was the envy of the world has been transformed to a cess pit of greed and failure - and the people responsible should be held to account. 

    Thank you @Phillip amongst others for your tenacity and diligence in shining a light into the dark corners - I appreciate your efforts YJBs!! 

    garythenotrashcougar
  • edited January 15
    Firmly with @Phillip and @Jackareme on this.

    The Trust are doing a fabulous, painstaking job in chipping away to finally get to the truth.

    There is undoubtedly something going on. That the non-playing staff wages have spiralled is a matter of record. What isn't, is exactly why and to whom this money is going. Hence them trying to slap ridiculous NDAs on anyone who is asking. 

    Support the Trust, keep the faith in what they are doing. The truth will out, eventually.

    Jackareme
  • Those 2 motions are interesting.

    I understand the first one but, without having heard the arguments for and against, from where I sit this this morning, I don't see it is a good idea as there could be lots of confidential issues that may be inappropriate to share.

    And I don't fully understand the second one, it's impact on the mediation process, or why it's needed at all.

    I've just emailed the Trust to ask if we are going to receive any documentation in support of the motions or whether it's all done on the night. It would be nice to see some justification from the proposer beforehand and also the Trust Board's counter-view if they have one - I'd like to understand both issues better and have thinking time ahead of any vote.

    I remember @StephenR mentioning discussions with Roger Brace on the Trust's Facebook group. If we have anybody who are members of that group, have these motions been bounced around and discussed on there ?
    This is what Roger has said: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Trustmembers/1299593680181145/?comment_id=1299608276846352&reply_comment_id=1299688430171670&notif_id=1547564720209418&notif_t=group_comment_reply
  • edited January 16
    Thanks Stephen - unfortunately I no longer have an active Facebook account and am also not a member of the group.

    However, thinking more about the first motion, this would be extremely dangerous at this time. There is nothing to stop one of the selling directors or new owners to ask a friend to join up as a member ( if they haven't already done so!) and ask for copies of key legal documents relating to the Trust's case e.g. a copy of the first QC's advice or a copy of the 2nd QC's advice. This would be a back door for the owners and selling directors to view all the Trust's documents - that's the way it reads. 
    Mark_Jack_London
  • Here is a screen grab of the thread from Facebook:


  • Thank you  @webmaster

    Gives some more detail about the second motion but I would like to hear what the Trust Board have to say about this, preferably a few days in advance of the meeting. Still haven't had a response from the Trust to my email. 


    Webmaster
Sign In or Register to comment.