| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law 15:05 - Dec 18 with 10384 views | TheResurrection |
So the famed, for all the wrong reasons, movie about our meteoric rise to the top, which somehow conveniently forgot the Trust's major role was produced by Andrew's Father in Law.
Mal is obviously very friendly with the selling shareholders so all of a sudden I'm a little concerned about this latest appointment.
|  |
| |  |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 10:04 - Dec 20 with 1858 views | Phil_S |
Very simple, at the time there was no belief that the money was being paid - you are picking up on something well documented from February 2015 - the unravelling of the payments came in September/October 2016?
The answer given at that time was what I believed to be correct
Honestly Chris I'm not spending my day going over old ground again, its pointless. The answer you want is in this very post.
Looks like we are heading for another Christmas like last one. |  | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 10:05 - Dec 20 with 1855 views | TheResurrection |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 09:24 - Dec 20 by Magic_Michu |
I’ve known Andrew for years. He’s been a big Swans fan since he was a kid. I’m sure he’ll serve with the club’s best interests at heart. |
I've seen he is a massive Swans fan and above all, that's the most important thing for me. | |
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 10:09 - Dec 20 with 1839 views | TheResurrection |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 10:04 - Dec 20 by Phil_S |
Very simple, at the time there was no belief that the money was being paid - you are picking up on something well documented from February 2015 - the unravelling of the payments came in September/October 2016?
The answer given at that time was what I believed to be correct
Honestly Chris I'm not spending my day going over old ground again, its pointless. The answer you want is in this very post.
Looks like we are heading for another Christmas like last one. |
Well that's fair enough but the fact you are saying you didn't know it at the very least a bit worrying.
You see, with the Trust having a massive history of getting too cosy and generally jumping in bed with the Club itself, it's important we know for sure WTF it is going on?
Not knowing about things, your favourite facking excuse, just isn't going to wash any longer.
Due diligence needs to be carried out from within, starting with the Trust. | |
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 10:42 - Dec 20 with 1791 views | Phil_S |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 10:09 - Dec 20 by TheResurrection |
Well that's fair enough but the fact you are saying you didn't know it at the very least a bit worrying.
You see, with the Trust having a massive history of getting too cosy and generally jumping in bed with the Club itself, it's important we know for sure WTF it is going on?
Not knowing about things, your favourite facking excuse, just isn't going to wash any longer.
Due diligence needs to be carried out from within, starting with the Trust. |
Fiar comment not going to argue | | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 11:22 - Dec 20 with 1739 views | Private_Partz |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 10:42 - Dec 20 by Phil_S |
Fiar comment not going to argue |
There Res. Happy with that? Now can you harness your undoubted energy so we can all look forward instead of back?
Any harlots and charlatans can be exposed as we progress if necessary ;-) [Post edited 20 Dec 2017 11:23]
|  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 12:00 - Dec 20 with 1702 views | TheResurrection |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 11:22 - Dec 20 by Private_Partz |
There Res. Happy with that? Now can you harness your undoubted energy so we can all look forward instead of back?
Any harlots and charlatans can be exposed as we progress if necessary ;-) [Post edited 20 Dec 2017 11:23]
|
Well I am, as Andrew McG is the going forward bit.
So we have a right to know a bit about him don't we?
What his motives are for being involved, why he applied, who his influences are,what and whether anyone on the Board knows him or brought him on.
Still waiting for his views on A Jack to a King.... Andrew? | |
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 12:23 - Dec 20 with 1671 views | Outsider |
The broader point here is that for the Trust to regain credibility it needs to act in a transparent manner with members and without the appearance of any conflicts of interest. Otherwise the Trust will continue to be seen as a closed-shop and there will continue to be suspicions over the motivations of board members, which is understandable given some things that have come to light over the past couple of years.
As I said in this thread earlier, lets take Andrew at face value and judge him by his actions. He brings youth and greater legal capability to the Trust board — both sorely needed in my view.
Apart from JTAK, the fact that Andrew’s father is close friends with Roger Goodwin (if true) has unfortunate optics. [NB — Roger was one of three existing Trust board members who interviewed applicants and for the co-opted board positions and recommended the appointments to the board].
A positive of this thread is that Andrew now knows his recommendation on the share sale will be monitored with particular interest. With his full access to the terms and conditions of the proposal, and the avenue of professional assistance available to evaluate the Trust's options, we will hear his considered opinion on the best way forward for the Trust in due course.
From what he has said so far on here he seems to be a straightforward guy. |  | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 12:51 - Dec 20 with 1628 views | monmouth |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 12:23 - Dec 20 by Outsider |
The broader point here is that for the Trust to regain credibility it needs to act in a transparent manner with members and without the appearance of any conflicts of interest. Otherwise the Trust will continue to be seen as a closed-shop and there will continue to be suspicions over the motivations of board members, which is understandable given some things that have come to light over the past couple of years.
As I said in this thread earlier, lets take Andrew at face value and judge him by his actions. He brings youth and greater legal capability to the Trust board — both sorely needed in my view.
Apart from JTAK, the fact that Andrew’s father is close friends with Roger Goodwin (if true) has unfortunate optics. [NB — Roger was one of three existing Trust board members who interviewed applicants and for the co-opted board positions and recommended the appointments to the board].
A positive of this thread is that Andrew now knows his recommendation on the share sale will be monitored with particular interest. With his full access to the terms and conditions of the proposal, and the avenue of professional assistance available to evaluate the Trust's options, we will hear his considered opinion on the best way forward for the Trust in due course.
From what he has said so far on here he seems to be a straightforward guy. |
Yes, but as I have read it he's only examining the deal for 'material' changes to the terms and will presumably decide what is "material"
Given that there was no answer to my initial comment on the relationship issue that caused Phil and Matt to resign, I can only assume that is not considered "material".
Personally that is in my view the whole crux, particularly if there are gagging clauses attached, or future bars to legal action, or potential ways around things in terms of company structure, that cannot be mitigated. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:23 - Dec 20 with 1584 views | chad |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 12:51 - Dec 20 by monmouth |
Yes, but as I have read it he's only examining the deal for 'material' changes to the terms and will presumably decide what is "material"
Given that there was no answer to my initial comment on the relationship issue that caused Phil and Matt to resign, I can only assume that is not considered "material".
Personally that is in my view the whole crux, particularly if there are gagging clauses attached, or future bars to legal action, or potential ways around things in terms of company structure, that cannot be mitigated. |
Yes that is precisely what he said in fact I penned the following in reply to him at the time but did not post it as he has not been responding to questions ... including one from shaky asking if he thought the members had the right to decide
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I presume when you are looking for material differences you will be looking at the expectation of relationship with the buyer implied in the document and a vitally important aspect to make the deal viable.
Most especially important given we are signing so many of our rights over to the buyers as part of the deal (including when / to whom and for what price we will be sold out of the club) and given as our Director reiterated on Thursday that we have no real power on the Board - in fact pushing another member to ask what was the point of having shares
Fair point if non disclosure obligations render us impotent
My husband now refers to us as a silent partner - he is not wrong when we are watering down strongly worded letters until they almost seem censure on our own supporters - merely to placate the owners because of the deal - all described by matt. This is most material as it is our core function to comment and certainly not what the members voted for as part of the deal.
These implied relationship status expectations, may be soft but may be more fundamental than the hard benefits. I also hope you will be taking into account the statements made by the 2 Board members that resigned and their comments related to their reasons for resigning and their understanding of the position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course in the past Andrew has posted on here an article calling the share purchase an investment
when I pulled him up on that (as sixpenses) as did others, said how sure he was that the buyers would invest into the club as well! (although that was not mentioned in the article calling the sale an investment)
Also said how wise the club Board were
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also
The Trust Board member who schooled me ;) on how good the deal was after the Trust meeting, mentioned him particularly and seemed very impressed with him.
However his argument was our shares are going to tank so we did well to get the full market price for ¼ of them
Hope he didn’t get that implacable logic off Andrew - eek |  | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:39 - Dec 20 with 1558 views | Outsider |
Spot on Monmouth and Chad ... as a new board member Andrew should be reviewing the proposed share sale contract holistically with a fresh pair of eyes to assess its merits vs. the other options that exist, rather than simply assessing whether the contract is legally in line with the proposal reviewed by the Phil/Will/Stu in the summer.
Anything less than this and Andrew does not understand his role as a Trust board member recruited with the professional background to conduct this assessment (or has been persuaded by other board members to limit his review). | | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:41 - Dec 20 with 1552 views | MattG |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 12:51 - Dec 20 by monmouth |
Yes, but as I have read it he's only examining the deal for 'material' changes to the terms and will presumably decide what is "material"
Given that there was no answer to my initial comment on the relationship issue that caused Phil and Matt to resign, I can only assume that is not considered "material".
Personally that is in my view the whole crux, particularly if there are gagging clauses attached, or future bars to legal action, or potential ways around things in terms of company structure, that cannot be mitigated. |
It was the seemingly positive nature of the future relationship between the Trust and the Yanks which just about made the original deal palatable for me.
I felt it was fundamental, given that we would be waiving the legal option in respect of the original sale and were also somewhat reliant on them in terms of ensuring we receive a fair price if the drag rights were exercised.
I don't know whether that relationship was a factor for many others who voted in favour of the deal but I'd be pretty surprised if I was the only one. |  | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:44 - Dec 20 with 1541 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:39 - Dec 20 by Outsider |
Spot on Monmouth and Chad ... as a new board member Andrew should be reviewing the proposed share sale contract holistically with a fresh pair of eyes to assess its merits vs. the other options that exist, rather than simply assessing whether the contract is legally in line with the proposal reviewed by the Phil/Will/Stu in the summer.
Anything less than this and Andrew does not understand his role as a Trust board member recruited with the professional background to conduct this assessment (or has been persuaded by other board members to limit his review). |
Not in specific response to this, but the new people, including myself, have been on board for just over a week. Could we at least be given a chance.
Andrew, Dai and myself are looking at everything to do with statements and agreements. Everything.
There has been no request (or certainly not to me) to limit anything. I have sent a stack of mails to the group on all sorts of issues in the last week. | | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 14:10 - Dec 20 with 1496 views | monmouth |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:44 - Dec 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Not in specific response to this, but the new people, including myself, have been on board for just over a week. Could we at least be given a chance.
Andrew, Dai and myself are looking at everything to do with statements and agreements. Everything.
There has been no request (or certainly not to me) to limit anything. I have sent a stack of mails to the group on all sorts of issues in the last week. |
What? You've had a week. How long do you want....
Fair point. We are probably all beyond paranoia, and on field and off field matters are raising everyone's blood pressure. More than happy to take that reassurance as closure on this for me. | |
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 14:24 - Dec 20 with 1471 views | chad |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:44 - Dec 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Not in specific response to this, but the new people, including myself, have been on board for just over a week. Could we at least be given a chance.
Andrew, Dai and myself are looking at everything to do with statements and agreements. Everything.
There has been no request (or certainly not to me) to limit anything. I have sent a stack of mails to the group on all sorts of issues in the last week. |
Fair point Lisa and I am sure we are all really grateful for all the work you are all doing and I personally will be doing my bit - But Andrew presented it as a straight look at the consultation document against the terms of the agreedment (sp!)
Legally it would be Naive and incomplete not to consider the other important issues clearly implied within the document, and the conduct which has even made the Trust censor itself as part of the deal. Not what the members voted for.
The mandate is not only the result of the document but largely (as presented to me at the meetings) a vote of trust in the Trust's recommendation. And there were some very misleading things said and implied by Trust Board members as well as censorship. Which I have raised as a serious issue and should be ignored at their own peril
Also did they have the facility to fully understand the issues they were making the recommendation on as some are very seriously questionable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
here is another part of the reply I penned to Andrew but did not bother posting when he was not replying to others...
Thanks Andrew I will be doing a bit of a forensic analysis of that myself in terms of the imbalance in the way the deal was pushed, whilst building the case for misrepresentation
(I was not the only member to raise these concern at the meeting)
Do you have the link to the documents please
You will have possibly seen on here how Counsel advice has been misrepresented
or as Lisa said "couched in ambiguity to make people think that's [Counsel supporting the deal] what happened".
e.g.
“All we know there is what the QC said, the same QC that also suggested the deal should be recommended”
(the QC) “certainly always said that we should make the recommendation which we did”
-----------
p.s Lisa do you have a link to the consulatation document please, as an online version that I can copy from will make my life much easier
Many thanks | | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 16:01 - Dec 20 with 1388 views | TheResurrection |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:23 - Dec 20 by chad |
Yes that is precisely what he said in fact I penned the following in reply to him at the time but did not post it as he has not been responding to questions ... including one from shaky asking if he thought the members had the right to decide
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I presume when you are looking for material differences you will be looking at the expectation of relationship with the buyer implied in the document and a vitally important aspect to make the deal viable.
Most especially important given we are signing so many of our rights over to the buyers as part of the deal (including when / to whom and for what price we will be sold out of the club) and given as our Director reiterated on Thursday that we have no real power on the Board - in fact pushing another member to ask what was the point of having shares
Fair point if non disclosure obligations render us impotent
My husband now refers to us as a silent partner - he is not wrong when we are watering down strongly worded letters until they almost seem censure on our own supporters - merely to placate the owners because of the deal - all described by matt. This is most material as it is our core function to comment and certainly not what the members voted for as part of the deal.
These implied relationship status expectations, may be soft but may be more fundamental than the hard benefits. I also hope you will be taking into account the statements made by the 2 Board members that resigned and their comments related to their reasons for resigning and their understanding of the position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course in the past Andrew has posted on here an article calling the share purchase an investment
when I pulled him up on that (as sixpenses) as did others, said how sure he was that the buyers would invest into the club as well! (although that was not mentioned in the article calling the sale an investment)
Also said how wise the club Board were
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also
The Trust Board member who schooled me ;) on how good the deal was after the Trust meeting, mentioned him particularly and seemed very impressed with him.
However his argument was our shares are going to tank so we did well to get the full market price for ¼ of them
Hope he didn’t get that implacable logic off Andrew - eek |
Which Andrew are you referring to there, re the share purchase being an investment? Is that McGlarhan, and if so, do you have the link? | |
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 16:06 - Dec 20 with 1366 views | TheResurrection |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 13:44 - Dec 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Not in specific response to this, but the new people, including myself, have been on board for just over a week. Could we at least be given a chance.
Andrew, Dai and myself are looking at everything to do with statements and agreements. Everything.
There has been no request (or certainly not to me) to limit anything. I have sent a stack of mails to the group on all sorts of issues in the last week. |
Definitely Lisa, but please allow the process of scrutiny to run free and able among the people that actually give a toss.
What individuals thoughts were at the time of the 2 takeovers is an important sense check for me. | |
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 16:28 - Dec 20 with 1328 views | Batterseajack |
I think we sometimes forget we're dealing with volunteers here giving up their free time working for the trust. I wouldn't touch any role at the trust with a barge pole if it meant being scrutinized along with family members publicly on a forum based on pure conjecture. Fu(k that. | | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 16:48 - Dec 20 with 1289 views | TheResurrection |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 16:28 - Dec 20 by Batterseajack |
I think we sometimes forget we're dealing with volunteers here giving up their free time working for the trust. I wouldn't touch any role at the trust with a barge pole if it meant being scrutinized along with family members publicly on a forum based on pure conjecture. Fu(k that. |
Well I don't know you from Adam, or at least I don't think I do, but fine, don't ever stick your name up for the facking public cause. Stay in the background trying to dampen concern and issues, just like so many others have over the recent years and much to our detriment.
There's a theme always here. This site was used to ambush posters who rightly criticised and the same as happening again, so don't take this the wrong way mush, but fack off. | |
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 19:13 - Dec 20 with 1186 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 16:06 - Dec 20 by TheResurrection |
Definitely Lisa, but please allow the process of scrutiny to run free and able among the people that actually give a toss.
What individuals thoughts were at the time of the 2 takeovers is an important sense check for me. |
Oh I agree Chris, I'm just saying that everything is being looked at by the subgroup. | | | |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 19:23 - Dec 20 with 1157 views | max936 |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 19:13 - Dec 20 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh I agree Chris, I'm just saying that everything is being looked at by the subgroup. |
Found any eye openers Lisa? or are they in a file cabinet with secret draws  |  |
| |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 19:25 - Dec 20 with 1155 views | Darran |
| Mal Pope, A Jack to a King. Andrew McGlashan's Father in Law on 19:23 - Dec 20 by max936 |
Found any eye openers Lisa? or are they in a file cabinet with secret draws |
Drawers. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
