Trust Update

Swans Trust Update - April 2019

Dear 

Welcome to your April update from the Swans Trust board. Communication with our members is something that is very important for the Trust board and we know this view is shared by our members. Therefore, we will aim to provide monthly email updates to our members on the various activities that have taken place during the last month.

Shareholding Update

It has been a couple of months since the Swans Trust’s AGM where, during his address, our Chairman Phil Sumbler outlined the timetable and actions to be taken within which the Trust will seek to resolve the long-standing legal issues regarding the Trust’s shareholding in the football club.

As communicated to our members a few weeks later, we were disappointed to announce that the proposed mediation, planned for the end of February, was not going to proceed.

This was for two reasons. Firstly, the legal representatives of the selling shareholders informed our legal representatives that he had been instructed not to provide a detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction. Mediation cannot sensibly take place without that response/defence and the Trust cannot commit to wasting the funds of our members whilst the selling shareholders concerned refuse to properly engage in the pre-action process.

Secondly, it became clear prior to the mediation dates that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, despite the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation.  Although alternative attendees were suggested, a mediation is much less likely to be productive while the managing partners of the club’s owners are not prepared to fully engage.

At the time of that announcement, the Trust noted the willingness that had been shown by the majority owners to at least engage in the process to try to seek a mediated settlement. It is therefore disappointing to confirm that no progress has been made in that regard. The Trust has communicated our willingness to proceed with further dialogue, however we have not received any response.

In terms of next steps, as previously outlined, the Trust had planned to proceed with the members consultation on all available options during March. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, such as the changing circumstances, required legal activities taking longer than anticipated and the need to provide our members with information that is as comprehensive and accurate as we can, this has not been possible.

We apologise for any disappointment this causes to our members, however the Trust board is of the view that it is critical that we clarify all options for our members, where at all possible, prior to that consultation. The Trust board is still very much of the view that the members consultation will occur as soon as possible, and we will publish the timeline for this as soon as possible.

Football Club Update

Since our AGM, there have been some significant changes in the running of the football club. February saw the departure of Huw Jenkins from the role.

Huw deserves considerable credit for his part in the Swans’ rise to the Premier League and for that the Trust thanks him. However, we must also point out, once again, his involvement in the way the sale of the football club to its current owners was conducted, as well as the continuing negative impact of that sale. It is also important to remember Mr. Jenkins’s culpability for the disastrous transfer dealings of the past three seasons, which are the main reason the club is in its current position. For these reasons, change was inevitable and necessary.

Moving forward, it is accurate to say that the Trust has been keep informed by the club in terms of plans to find a replacement chairman, with the preferred candidate of the majority owners being Trevor Birch. As previously communicated, the Trust were informed that Mr. Birch was the majority owners’ preferred candidate in advance of his appointment and have met him both prior to, and after, his appointment. He brings wide experience and expertise to the role.

We are aware of the concerns raised by our members regarding the remit and targets he has been set by the majority owners, which ties in to the press reports regarding members of staff being notified of a consultation period regarding potential redundancies at the club. The Trust is acutely aware of the financial challenges which life in the Championship brings, but it is disappointing that jobs are at risk primarily due to the poor management of the football club in the past. However, we have been told that his focus is on stabilising the club rather than preparing the club for a sale. The Trust, through our supporter director, will be strongly representing the views of our members to the new chairman and the club board that any decisions made are taken with the best long-term interests of the football club at heart.

We should once again note that the Trust has previously communicated our concerns regarding some aspects of his remuneration package, which we have been informed contains an equity element. The details and conditions of this are unclear but, if true, would potentially dilute the Trust’s shareholding and further prejudice our position as a minority shareholder in the football club. The Trust raised our objections to the majority owners prior to the appointment but, to date, we have not received a response.

Main body of the update newsletter



This is really dragging on now.

I hope it's going to be worth it when we finally take legal action.


«1

Comments

  • Look like the fans are well represented by the Trust, However, Those who have read my ramblings will know my views on this sorry sad matter. Whilst the Trust is clearly well advised legally , They are making the classic mistake most honest litigants make, and that is believing their opponents "  honest and fair has they are and play by the rules. and that "Truth will always come out and justice always  wins "  also that the Courts are fair ,none  is true. and particularly in this case, the Owners have shown they lack of scruples time and time again. They also come from a background of "those with the deepest pockets get the win" they will try to win by engaging in time wasting legal nothings trying to win by having more money than you! Be Careful guys! particularly on any and all dealings with shares !

    Keep the good work up and I am sure I speak for the majority of fans when i say, You have my my support and best wishes. you also have the future of our club in your hands, dont let it be diluted! away by stealth. end of ramble ! 
    Jackareme
  • Swans Trust Update - April 2019

    Dear 

    Welcome to your April update from the Swans Trust board. Communication with our members is something that is very important for the Trust board and we know this view is shared by our members. Therefore, we will aim to provide monthly email updates to our members on the various activities that have taken place during the last month.

    Shareholding Update

    It has been a couple of months since the Swans Trust’s AGM where, during his address, our Chairman Phil Sumbler outlined the timetable and actions to be taken within which the Trust will seek to resolve the long-standing legal issues regarding the Trust’s shareholding in the football club.

    As communicated to our members a few weeks later, we were disappointed to announce that the proposed mediation, planned for the end of February, was not going to proceed.

    This was for two reasons. Firstly, the legal representatives of the selling shareholders informed our legal representatives that he had been instructed not to provide a detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction. Mediation cannot sensibly take place without that response/defence and the Trust cannot commit to wasting the funds of our members whilst the selling shareholders concerned refuse to properly engage in the pre-action process.

    Secondly, it became clear prior to the mediation dates that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, despite the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation.  Although alternative attendees were suggested, a mediation is much less likely to be productive while the managing partners of the club’s owners are not prepared to fully engage.

    At the time of that announcement, the Trust noted the willingness that had been shown by the majority owners to at least engage in the process to try to seek a mediated settlement. It is therefore disappointing to confirm that no progress has been made in that regard. The Trust has communicated our willingness to proceed with further dialogue, however we have not received any response.

    In terms of next steps, as previously outlined, the Trust had planned to proceed with the members consultation on all available options during March. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, such as the changing circumstances, required legal activities taking longer than anticipated and the need to provide our members with information that is as comprehensive and accurate as we can, this has not been possible.

    We apologise for any disappointment this causes to our members, however the Trust board is of the view that it is critical that we clarify all options for our members, where at all possible, prior to that consultation. The Trust board is still very much of the view that the members consultation will occur as soon as possible, and we will publish the timeline for this as soon as possible.

    Football Club Update

    Since our AGM, there have been some significant changes in the running of the football club. February saw the departure of Huw Jenkins from the role.

    Huw deserves considerable credit for his part in the Swans’ rise to the Premier League and for that the Trust thanks him. However, we must also point out, once again, his involvement in the way the sale of the football club to its current owners was conducted, as well as the continuing negative impact of that sale. It is also important to remember Mr. Jenkins’s culpability for the disastrous transfer dealings of the past three seasons, which are the main reason the club is in its current position. For these reasons, change was inevitable and necessary.

    Moving forward, it is accurate to say that the Trust has been keep informed by the club in terms of plans to find a replacement chairman, with the preferred candidate of the majority owners being Trevor Birch. As previously communicated, the Trust were informed that Mr. Birch was the majority owners’ preferred candidate in advance of his appointment and have met him both prior to, and after, his appointment. He brings wide experience and expertise to the role.

    We are aware of the concerns raised by our members regarding the remit and targets he has been set by the majority owners, which ties in to the press reports regarding members of staff being notified of a consultation period regarding potential redundancies at the club. The Trust is acutely aware of the financial challenges which life in the Championship brings, but it is disappointing that jobs are at risk primarily due to the poor management of the football club in the past. However, we have been told that his focus is on stabilising the club rather than preparing the club for a sale. The Trust, through our supporter director, will be strongly representing the views of our members to the new chairman and the club board that any decisions made are taken with the best long-term interests of the football club at heart.

    We should once again note that the Trust has previously communicated our concerns regarding some aspects of his remuneration package, which we have been informed contains an equity element. The details and conditions of this are unclear but, if true, would potentially dilute the Trust’s shareholding and further prejudice our position as a minority shareholder in the football club. The Trust raised our objections to the majority owners prior to the appointment but, to date, we have not received a response.

    Main body of the update newsletter



    This is really dragging on now.

    I hope it's going to be worth it when we finally take legal action.


    Maybe the members will decide against legal action? Whilst I don't think the Trust should let the buggers get away with anything, the club will suffer big time if legal action is taken, that's why the Trust wanted mediation to see if there was a compromise.
  • edited April 5
    When I read this first, I was really disappointed and apprehensive of even further delays. Having read the Q&A's on this topic on Planetswans, I am more encouraged in that The Trust has now decided that any vote will not include a mediation option. They had to draw the line at some point in order to move on, and they seemed to have done that.

    Jacktar - the Trust have never said that pursuing mediation was to avoid the club "suffering big time". It's always been sold as trying to avoid legal action if at all possible but , if not, then it was a recommended precursor to legal action by showing that they had at least tried to reach a settlement. No mention by the Trust of potential damage to the club and I can't see any myself, apart from some negative PR.

    Things have changed a lot since the last vote and the mood amongst members has changed. I've attended most Trust meetings over the last couple of years and it was fairly predictable that the first deal was going to be accepted in a vote. Since then, and following everything that has gone on, I have seen the views of members in those meetings undergo a big change and I predict that will be overturned on the next vote and that legal action is voted for this time.
    bigoak
  • Three years too late Jeff. wasting their time now, and building expectations that are well beyond anything the Trust can deliver.
  • I'm banned from King Phils site so i can't comment on there . This mediation stuff is going to bite the trust on the proverbial . Previously they shot down the statement from the sellers lawyer and said they did not back out of mediation . This statement today contradicts this .

    Buyers . The trust can't demand certain people turn up as long as the buyers send representatives that are able to negotiate and bind .
    Sellers . The trust can't demand that a ' detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction ' . Not a legal requirement . 

    So therefore the trust didn't go to mediation because they didn't get what they wanted from the buyers and sellers . 

    I wonder who the trust were sending to mediation as they could never negotiation anything without member ratification so therefore they couldn't reasonable agree any deal without a long process of going back to members to vote .  Hardly mediation and very hard to have a go at the buyers .

    What a mess and i am still to see what the Trust end game is in this ? It seems all driven by a personal Vendetta by the returning Trust chairman .  If it was his own money it would not be happening . 

    As someone said . It has been 3 years . Trust should , as a 20%  shareholder , stop attacking the club and concentrate on trying to bring us ( the fans ) all together . RALLY ffs


  • WOW, Why have you all this anger inside you about the trust?  Can you explane that to a lay man? 
  • I'm banned from King Phils site so i can't comment on there . This mediation stuff is going to bite the trust on the proverbial . Previously they shot down the statement from the sellers lawyer and said they did not back out of mediation . This statement today contradicts this .

    Buyers . The trust can't demand certain people turn up as long as the buyers send representatives that are able to negotiate and bind .
    Sellers . The trust can't demand that a ' detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction ' . Not a legal requirement . 

    So therefore the trust didn't go to mediation because they didn't get what they wanted from the buyers and sellers . 

    I wonder who the trust were sending to mediation as they could never negotiation anything without member ratification so therefore they couldn't reasonable agree any deal without a long process of going back to members to vote .  Hardly mediation and very hard to have a go at the buyers .

    What a mess and i am still to see what the Trust end game is in this ? It seems all driven by a personal Vendetta by the returning Trust chairman .  If it was his own money it would not be happening . 

    As someone said . It has been 3 years . Trust should , as a 20%  shareholder , stop attacking the club and concentrate on trying to bring us ( the fans ) all together . RALLY ffs


    You're either profoundly thick, or being deliberately disingenuous. Do one.
  • Like a cuckoo laying an egg in another's nest if you ask me. Planted to spread doubts about the Trust ??
  • edited April 7
    Andrew2 said:
    Three years too late Jeff. wasting their time now, and building expectations that are well beyond anything the Trust can deliver.
    Andrew - I agree that it should have been escalated a lot sooner than this but I disagree that it is "too late"

    Is it legally too late ? No, because the lawyers from both sides would have told us by now.
    Is it morally too late ? No, it never morally too late to get justice.
    Is it practically too late? Or is our case weaker because of the delay? Well, the legal man said in the Trust Forum before last that our case was even stronger now than it was originally, so the delay has not made it weaker - in fact the opposite may be the case.

    It might take a few years to get finally resolved if it gets to court but, in my view, that shouldn't be a reason to just back off and let it go.

  • konnar said:
    WOW, Why have you all this anger inside you about the trust?  Can you explane that to a lay man? 
    I have no anger and i am not anti the trust . I do think that the person looking after 20% of our club has clouded judgement due to an oversized ego and personal vendettas . 

    He runs a site that continually closes posters down if they go against him and the trust yet posters are allowed free reign to attack others , post defamatory remarks against people and lie when i am sure he knows the truth but it doesn't suit him to say .

    Why did he resign from the trust , then head an organisation that wanted to cause damage through marches and boycotts and then want to come back as chairman of the trust which owns 20% of our club . 

    He continues to put out statements that are aimed at causing unrest and the latest one just strengthens my belief that the trust didn't turn up for mediation and if this is the case he has lied again .  

    To explain in lay mans terms .

    The statement said ' As communicated to our members a few weeks later, we were disappointed to announce that the proposed mediation, planned for the end of February, was not going to proceed. '

    It then out lines the reasons . 

    The buyers were sending representatives so they hadn't pulled out and were coming to mediate but the trust wanted other people to turn up . 

    and 

     ' The sellers didn't send in a detailed response to the claim letter as it isn't required in mediation . ' Yet the sellers lawyer said " A detailed response to a letter of claim being provided is not required for mediation however our clients had agreed on a number of occasions in writing to provide a submission of their position. This is what is required for mediation to take place, litigation is entirely separate "  . ( of course their lawyer could be lying but that would be a very stupid thing to do ) .  So the sellers hadn't pulled out of mediation . 

    If the Buyers and the sellers didn't pull out then it means the Trust did and all because someone wanted to dictate who was coming and wanted responses made that in mediate aren't legally required . I hope that makes sense .  


  • konnar said:
    WOW, Why have you all this anger inside you about the trust?  Can you explane that to a lay man? 
    I have no anger and i am not anti the trust . I do think that the person looking after 20% of our club has clouded judgement due to an oversized ego and personal vendettas . 

    He runs a site that continually closes posters down if they go against him and the trust yet posters are allowed free reign to attack others , post defamatory remarks against people and lie when i am sure he knows the truth but it doesn't suit him to say .

    Why did he resign from the trust , then head an organisation that wanted to cause damage through marches and boycotts and then want to come back as chairman of the trust which owns 20% of our club . 

    He continues to put out statements that are aimed at causing unrest and the latest one just strengthens my belief that the trust didn't turn up for mediation and if this is the case he has lied again .  

    To explain in lay mans terms .

    The statement said ' As communicated to our members a few weeks later, we were disappointed to announce that the proposed mediation, planned for the end of February, was not going to proceed. '

    It then out lines the reasons . 

    The buyers were sending representatives so they hadn't pulled out and were coming to mediate but the trust wanted other people to turn up . 

    and 

     ' The sellers didn't send in a detailed response to the claim letter as it isn't required in mediation . ' Yet the sellers lawyer said " A detailed response to a letter of claim being provided is not required for mediation however our clients had agreed on a number of occasions in writing to provide a submission of their position. This is what is required for mediation to take place, litigation is entirely separate "  . ( of course their lawyer could be lying but that would be a very stupid thing to do ) .  So the sellers hadn't pulled out of mediation . 

    If the Buyers and the sellers didn't pull out then it means the Trust did and all because someone wanted to dictate who was coming and wanted responses made that in mediate aren't legally required . I hope that makes sense .  


    The person who is running the Trust(in your words) will be the person who will represent the Trust when a meeting is called and tell its members what is happening in communication with the club, and it's the members who will say yes or no to what ever proposals are put to the floor, not the chairman.
    Whatever problems you have with the owner of Planet Swans, that is your problem, discuss it there and don't cloud posters judgement on this forum, especially the ones who have  not thread the full threads of your argument with posters on Planet Swans.

    As for the Trust, perhaps its because I have known the important people in the organisation for a long time, respect what they are doing, but most of all I trust what they tell me. 

    Taken from the Trust statement and quite explanatory,

    Firstly, the legal representatives of the selling shareholders informed our legal representatives that he had been instructed not to provide a detailed response to the claim letter, demonstrating that his clients had no intention of complying with the Practice Direction. Mediation cannot sensibly take place without that response/defence and the Trust cannot commit to wasting the funds of our members whilst the selling shareholders concerned refuse to properly engage in the pre-action process.

    Secondly, it became clear prior to the mediation dates that neither of the managing partners of the majority shareholders, Steve Kaplan or Jason Levien, were planning to attend the proposed February mediation dates either, despite the Trust having made it clear that the attendance of one of them was vital if the Trust was to commit to spending thousands of pounds on a mediation.  Although alternative attendees were suggested, a mediation is much less likely to be productive while the managing partners of the club’s owners are not prepared to fully engage.

    At the time of that announcement, the Trust noted the willingness that had been shown by the majority owners to at least engage in the process to try to seek a mediated settlement. It is therefore disappointing to confirm that no progress has been made in that regard. The Trust has communicated our willingness to proceed with further dialogue, however we have not received any response.









  • Colin thanks for re posting the trusts statement however we all know that Ponty or whatever that person calls himself now has always been for the sellers and against the trust even after being offered the chance to debate it with Jim he flatly denied . He has been banned from PS for roughly the same drivel . A conversation I had with an ex poster last week we both said that Ponty is trying to plant the seeds of doubt in people’s mind and trying to turn the fans against the trust . My opinion there not fact  :D
  • enaitch,
    the segment I posted from the recent Trust statement is quite explanatory, only s’body with an agenda will want to read it differently
  • Incredible stuff from Whitemountains
    I've just read the 2 recent Trust statements again and there is nothing contradictory there and I can't see any lies.
    Seems like there's a personal vendetta going on and an attempt to discredit Phil.

  • No two ways about it - whitemountains is completely wrong. An attempt to defend the utterly indefensible. 
  • No two ways about it - whitemountains is completely wrong. An attempt to defend the utterly indefensible. 
    Explain ?  BTW your friend King Phil is back posting on Planetswans trying to shout down any meaningful discussion with the help of his trusted friend Darren . 

  • Incredible stuff from Whitemountains
    I've just read the 2 recent Trust statements again and there is nothing contradictory there and I can't see any lies.
    Seems like there's a personal vendetta going on and an attempt to discredit Phil.

    Your a good poster . Please tell me what i said wrong in my post ?

  • Incredible stuff from Whitemountains
    I've just read the 2 recent Trust statements again and there is nothing contradictory there and I can't see any lies.
    Seems like there's a personal vendetta going on and an attempt to discredit Phil.

    Your a good poster . Please tell me what i said wrong in my post ?
    I understand the 2 points you're making regarding the mediation but you are taking the side of the sellers' solicitor's view of the legal position whilst I prefer to take the Trust's view on those issues and that they have done the appropriate things throughout this whole process. I trust them.

    In your first post you said there was a contradictory statement from the Trust- I didn't see any.

    In your second post you accused Phil of 'lying again' - I see no evidence of that and I trust him.The stuff you've written following 'in layman's terms' to try and explain further I don't understand at all. 

  • The lawyers statement was a statement of fact and not a view . If i remember correctly he stated that he has all necessary correspondence to show it was the trust that refused to attend . He then stated the reasons they refused which in law are not valid . ie they cannot dictate who attends to mediation and they can't DEMAND a detailed response to a claim letter . 

    To say Phil was lying is perhaps rather strong and i apologise . Fluffy statements to confuse matters is probably a better way of putting it . 
  • Are these the same sellers that signed off on a board meeting entered the paperwork as fact only then in front of a legal tribunal admitted that the meeting never took place ... I presume they had the same lawyers then ....
  • Try and stay on Subject . 

    But since you asked i don't think it was the sellers . I think it was one person and i don't know if the same Lawyers were involved .

    Is this the same trust that blatantly lied about Huw Cooze ? Just saying .
  • Jenkins, signed off a pre-sale agreement at the back end of 2015 on behalf of all shareholders only telling the Trust about the interest 3 months later. Fact
    For the sale to proceed, there had to be a meeting of old directors where Penny and Keefe supposedly resigned, there was no meeting and fabricated minutes were submitted to Company's House. Fact
    Levien saying on video that he was told by the selling shareholders not to engage with the Trust, Fact
    enaitchcimlajackJackareme
  • I’m only saying that the sellers are not very trustworthy people and have lied on numerous occasions and this could be such an occasion. 
  • enaitch said:
    I’m only saying that the sellers are not very trustworthy people and have lied on numerous occasions and this could be such an occasion. 
    It may well be one of those occasions  . If it had come from their mouths personally then i might agree .  I cannot for the life of me see the lawyer making statements as he did without being able to substantiate it . In fact he was almost offering to show the proof . 

    Sadly every party has shown to not fully tell the truth . The trust did so with the Cooze debacle . Many many fans are sick to the back teeth of all the statements coming out and have lost all interest in the politics of the club . The Trust have only about 1200 members . It's not a true representation of the fanbase but you would feel from their public statements that it is .

    Asset stripping , money being taken out , hedge funds etc is all propaganda fuelled by those who have public channels . It needs to stop as it is damaging our club even further . The yanks for all their faults are not trying to strip the club . They are trying to get it onto a sound financial footing after relegation . Most people understand that so now is not the time for false propaganda . 


    Cadiz
  • The Trust represent 100% of its members as it always has, 1200 is all they’ve ever had in membership except for the odd spike, yes there should be far more but like the AA or or an insurance policy, you don’t really want to sign up but happy to receive any benefits, I often meet by Ivor’s statue or Robbie james’ wall of fame, brilliant Trust initiatives. I am grateful for the £20 away ticket and my dad has been delighted with his over 60’s discount, they have fought and won reduction on ST prices but you tend to forget the positive and look for any negative, and I have given just a few examples of what I’ve seen with my own eyes, that’s not just for 1200 members that’s for all fans. There is little incentive to join because privileged information is on here within seconds but I’m proud to pay my tenner so that I can help shape our future.
    MikeTasmania
  • So why if now is not the time for false propaganda are you harping on and supporting the statement from the sellers lawyer . Don’t forget they are millionaires and are paying their lawyers a good wack to represent them so the lawyers are not going to paint them in a bad way ... everyone is innocent until proven otherwise ....
  • enaitch said:
    So why if now is not the time for false propaganda are you harping on and supporting the statement from the sellers lawyer . Don’t forget they are millionaires and are paying their lawyers a good wack to represent them so the lawyers are not going to paint them in a bad way ... everyone is innocent until proven otherwise ....
    They aren't going to lie in public with statements either . I'll support what i can gain from info out there . At this time i'm backing the statement from the sellers lawyer . It's the only statement made by him / them which makes me think that he is pretty sure of his legal standing . Whereas the trust chuck statements out all the time and up til that one  knowing there would be no repercussions . 

    Where are the trust now ?  Plus why does our club need public spats . What do they expect to gain from it all ? Do they want to sell / do they not . How much do they want to sell / if any . If they do how much ? If they sell then what do they do with the money ? Keep it for the time we are in trouble again / what if we never need it ?
     AND the big thing with this AND.... how could they go to mediation without having any of the answers to these questions / remit from their members ?  It is not mediation then as those representing the trust have no authority to bind so it's not mediation as is seen in law . 

    Total mess in my view but too many people are happy to accept statements from the trust without sitting back and really looking at things like i have .  
    Gingergitenaitch
  • Have u ever googled this lawyer who you tend to believe over died in the wool Jacks? Try it, it’ll tell you more than enough 
  • edited April 11
    Ask you mate Huw did he borrow £2.5 mill from the club funds to pay his wife during his divorce in 2014 as he didn’t sell his shares till 2016  Where did he get the money from ???  :D
  • enaitch said:
    Ask you mate Huw did he borrow £2.5 mill from the club funds to pay his wife during his divorce in 2014 as he didn’t sell his shares till 2016  Where did he get the money from ???  :D

    Same time that Casey Roofing was taken over by LBS who took over their debts, as I keep saying 2014 was the time he took complete control and run it as his own business, mostly due to the fact everyone trusted him. He had no money until then Casey roofing were on the verge of being liquidated debts building up to owing hundreds of thousands since 2010. Its not only him to blame as it now appears he only owned 13.5% . Enaitch you are very much on the right lines though, however those on here  believe no one has taken money out of the club. They should also look under Hedge Fund management rules as well as they can take 20% of asset value and a further 2% for each investor per year, (as fees) under their rules they do not have to divulge breakdowns. 
    They guarantee their investors a maximum return on any assets they have bought into. (Asset value) players & property 
    Its nothing like people who normally buy into companies that are based on profit and loss and only take a dividend on profits made 
    enaitch
Sign In or Register to comment.