Football betting site Betway

American Investment

13»

Comments

  • Cadleigh said:
    So let me get this straight...

    When Jenkins et al owned the club you were happy that we lived within our means and did not go into debt, you attended matches and did not protest

    If the Trust bought the club tomorrow, you would be happy that we live within our means and do not go into debt, you would attend matches and not protest

    If the club was sold to a local supporter with limited means, you be happy that we live within our means and so not go into debt, you would attend matches and not protest

    But because the club is owned by 30-odd shareholders, a number of whom are independently wealthy, you are unhappy that we are not getting money from the magic tree so you are boycotting games?
    Phrases like "money from the magic tree" only serve to reinforce my point - there are two camps here. Those who (bafflingly) want to take the actions and words of proven liars at face value, and those who don't. 

    I'm not going to spend any more time on this with you @Cadleigh - you are where you are on it, I am where I am. Let's leave it at that.
  • If it was me I would ask what is defined as confidential, as an NDA has to specify what is considered confidential and cant be disclosed.

    So get the Trust to say they are considering signing an NDA and get a copy of the document. Then examine it, because of course as no-one has signed an NDA at this point they are quite entitled to disclose what information the NDA is trying to treat as confidential.

    Generally it has to be sensitive (!) and or protect some right like a patent.

    Get a copy and then we will know.
  • The entire purpose of a NDA is that all parts mentioned therin the NDA is confidential.
  • Stuart should is right to refuse to sign an NDA. but I am amazed that the Trust have not legally challenged the Club to have access to the accounts, as a shareholder.
    Stevieboyo
  • edited August 8
    Only after you have signed it and only what is defined within the document as confidential. It has to be defined it cannot be everything, so once you know the definition you know what is trying to be hidden.
  • Various legal authorities and courts have found contracts to be void in the following circumstances:
    1. Crime
    2. Torts
    3. Public safety
    4. Public Health
    5. Matters of substantial public concern
  • Stuart should is right to refuse to sign an NDA. but I am amazed that the Trust have not legally challenged the Club to have access to the accounts, as a shareholder.
    Yes , I've thought that too Mark. The second biggest shareholder and with a Director, and we can't have access to the detailed accounts. It's not right.
  • edited August 8
    Stuart should is right to refuse to sign an NDA. but I am amazed that the Trust have not legally challenged the Club to have access to the accounts, as a shareholder.
    Yes , I've thought that too Mark. The second biggest shareholder and with a Director, and we can't have access to the detailed accounts. It's not right.
    Simple explanation @Jeff_Cowbridge and @Mark_Jack_London - they don't want to complicate or potentially prejudice the main legal action that was in the planning, and now is underway. There are a few things they might have done over the last few years but legal advisers told them not to do anything that could be twisted in court. 
    JackaremeJeff_CowbridgeMark_Jack_London
  • Obviously, the Trust are following legal advice, these advisors have no interest in Swansea City, the Trust, however, does and there lies the rub, I am deeply concerned about the future of the club, two wrongs don’t make a right, but court action is now inevitable.
  • Jac said:
    Obviously, the Trust are following legal advice, these advisors have no interest in Swansea City, the Trust, however, does and there lies the rub, I am deeply concerned about the future of the club, two wrongs don’t make a right, but court action is now inevitable.
    I really hope that isn’t true. I voted to support action, because it makes no sense to take away the only bargaining counter the Trust has at its disposal. But the best outcome IMO is that a decisive vote from Trust members brings the other shareholders to the mediation table - not to court, which will only damage the club.
    Jackareme
  • that relies on the American owners and sellers seeing sense. The Trust have bent over backwards to try and resolve this and have been treated shockingly.
  • @Cadleigh I voted exactly as you for EXACTLY that reason. There needed to be a show of resolve and solidarity, and make no bones if there is no movement toward arbitration the Court is where this is going. However, all right minded people would prefer a negotiated resolution outside of the court room - and I still hope for that.
    What cannot happen is the trust showing any "chinks" in their resolve to take it to court - as bullies do not respond to anything positively other than strength.
    CadleighSeaJack
  • The Trust should have taken, what iv'e seen  called, the "Nuclear Option", at the first opportunity.
    As a Trust member, i have voted twice for legal action.
    This issue will get settled and never reach court,being a vindictive little shit,i'd love to see the case have a full public airing in open court and be able to see the squirming and blushes of the defendants.
    What i'd like to happen and what's going to happen are two different things unfortunately. 

  • cimlajack said:
    The Trust should have taken, what iv'e seen  called, the "Nuclear Option", at the first opportunity.
    As a Trust member, i have voted twice for legal action.
    This issue will get settled and never reach court,being a vindictive little shit,i'd love to see the case have a full public airing in open court and be able to see the squirming and blushes of the defendants.
    What i'd like to happen and what's going to happen are two different things unfortunately. 

    They couldn't go nuclear before now because there is a process to observe. They have to be able to demonstrate in court that they took all possible steps to mediate and avoid court proceedings.
    Mark_Jack_London
  • cimlajack said:
    The Trust should have taken, what iv'e seen  called, the "Nuclear Option", at the first opportunity.
    As a Trust member, i have voted twice for legal action.
    This issue will get settled and never reach court,being a vindictive little shit,i'd love to see the case have a full public airing in open court and be able to see the squirming and blushes of the defendants.
    What i'd like to happen and what's going to happen are two different things unfortunately. 

    They couldn't go nuclear before now because there is a process to observe. They have to be able to demonstrate in court that they took all possible steps to mediate and avoid court proceedings.
    I agree with Gary, and CJ, being a vindictive little shit doesn't help the club that we all love, lets say the Trust win, the owners will then own 100% of the club and can pay the Trust out of club money and there's little anyone can do about it, intact, they will do that and then when many of the players are sold and nothing is brought in to replace, they will then blame the Trust, I'm prepared for that, are you?
  • Jacktar said:
    cimlajack said:
    The Trust should have taken, what iv'e seen  called, the "Nuclear Option", at the first opportunity.
    As a Trust member, i have voted twice for legal action.
    This issue will get settled and never reach court,being a vindictive little shit,i'd love to see the case have a full public airing in open court and be able to see the squirming and blushes of the defendants.
    What i'd like to happen and what's going to happen are two different things unfortunately. 

    They couldn't go nuclear before now because there is a process to observe. They have to be able to demonstrate in court that they took all possible steps to mediate and avoid court proceedings.
    I agree with Gary, and CJ, being a vindictive little shit doesn't help the club that we all love, lets say the Trust win, the owners will then own 100% of the club and can pay the Trust out of club money and there's little anyone can do about it, intact, they will do that and then when many of the players are sold and nothing is brought in to replace, they will then blame the Trust, I'm prepared for that, are you?
    " I'm prepared for that are you ? "  Yes i am. 
    The owners may not own 100% of the club on paper, in reality they are in full control never the less.
    The current owners believe they have a "warranted sale" in any event.
    It will not get to court is my firm belief.
  • Gary gave a superb breakdown of my previous post , and I did infact place the 2 years parachute payments into i year Gary.  To my friend the Cad cadligh .  Nothing i have said or will say is in any way an accusation and in any event . Debate is what makes the world go round. and I for one will always ask a question of anybody regardless . You cant be accused of slander in a question, and the word "Alleged" is a powerful defense.

    Hers some questions , Has anyone seen a full breakdown of all income/expenditure for last few years? and someone mentioned NDA,s who has signed them? and why? After all all we are is a football club playing in English pyramid system. why NDAs?
  • cimlajack said:
    Jacktar said:
    cimlajack said:
    The Trust should have taken, what iv'e seen  called, the "Nuclear Option", at the first opportunity.
    As a Trust member, i have voted twice for legal action.
    This issue will get settled and never reach court,being a vindictive little shit,i'd love to see the case have a full public airing in open court and be able to see the squirming and blushes of the defendants.
    What i'd like to happen and what's going to happen are two different things unfortunately. 

    They couldn't go nuclear before now because there is a process to observe. They have to be able to demonstrate in court that they took all possible steps to mediate and avoid court proceedings.
    I agree with Gary, and CJ, being a vindictive little shit doesn't help the club that we all love, lets say the Trust win, the owners will then own 100% of the club and can pay the Trust out of club money and there's little anyone can do about it, intact, they will do that and then when many of the players are sold and nothing is brought in to replace, they will then blame the Trust, I'm prepared for that, are you?
    " I'm prepared for that are you ? "  Yes i am. 
    The owners may not own 100% of the club on paper, in reality they are in full control never the less.
    The current owners believe they have a "warranted sale" in any event.
    It will not get to court is my firm belief.
    I believe it will go to court.
    The Trust can't back down as its had a clear mandate off its members.
    The owners won't back down because its not in their nature. Plus, they probably have something signed warranting the original shareholders agreement is null and void.

    Court action may not happen for two reasons.
    The owners get around the table and discuss a deal with the Trust. (not likely)
    The Trust don't get litigation funding. (50/50)
  • Jacktar said:

    I believe it will go to court.
    The Trust can't back down as its had a clear mandate off its members.
    The owners won't back down because its not in their nature. Plus, they probably have something signed warranting the original shareholders agreement is null and void.

    Court action may not happen for two reasons.
    The owners get around the table and discuss a deal with the Trust. (not likely)
    The Trust don't get litigation funding. (50/50)
    The other possibility is that the sellers (HJ, MM, LD etc)  approach the Trust to make a deal.
    They only need to offer £21M - a third of what they are reported to have received from the sale- and I would imagine the Trust Board would accept that.
    As I've said a few times on here before, I'm so surprised they haven't already taken that approach - they still keep two thirds of their proceeds and avoid a court case. 

  • Maybe go to court get compensated from sellers and still keep shares and shareholders agreement reinstated as was and then jail someone for fraud would be nice. Could some one with a legal background explain to me who is reasonable if the new owners are found guilty of any wrong doing about the shareholders agreement etc, is it all the shareholders from America or just those involved in the negotiations .
  • Gingergit said:
    Maybe go to court get compensated from sellers and still keep shares and shareholders agreement reinstated as was and then jail someone for fraud would be nice. Could some one with a legal background explain to me who is reasonable if the new owners are found guilty of any wrong doing about the shareholders agreement etc, is it all the shareholders from America or just those involved in the negotiations .
    Responsible not reasonable sorry
  • They will never be found reasonable @Gingergit B)
Sign In or Register to comment.