| Trust Update... 20:34 - May 18 with 31052 views | marchamjack |
CONFIDENTIAL
This update is being sent to you as a registered member of Swansea City Supporters’ Society Limited, which is also known as the ‘Swansea City Supporters’ Trust’ (‘Trust’). If you are not a member of the Trust, please do not read it. If you are a member, please do not share it or pass it on to others. On the advice of our lawyers, we need to state that nothing in this update is, or is intended as, a waiver of legal professional privilege or any other type of privilege.
In January 2018 the majority owners of Swansea City decided to ‘put on hold’ indefinitely the ongoing discussions on the previously proposed deal relating to the part sale of the Trust’s shareholding in Swansea City Football 2002 Limited, which (through another company) owns the Football Club. With no indication as to whether the deal could be resurrected in the future, the Trust engaged further specialist legal advice in order to determine the next steps that could be taken to best protect the interests of the Trust and, therefore, our members. It will be recalled that we have previously reported that initial advice from Queen’s Counsel (a senior lawyer) was taken last year.
As a result, the Trust and our legal advisers have carried out a comprehensive review of the circumstances surrounding the 2016 sale of a controlling interest in the Club and the impact of these events on the Trust and our shareholding. This involved going back to 2001/2002, when the Club was saved from bankruptcy by the Trust and others, and establishing the relevant factual history and developments from then until the present day. Many people and sources had to be consulted to achieve this and the exercise has only been completed within the last few days.
Our lawyers have today sent (by electronic means or post) to the Club and its shareholders a detailed letter, setting out a number of legal claims on the part of the Trust, including complaints as to the very negative impact the sale and related matters have had on the Trust’s position as a shareholder. The letter and its schedules extend to some 60 pages.
On advice from our lawyers, and in accordance with Court guidelines, the Trust has offered to enter into a formal ‘mediation’ process with the majority owners and others, in order to seek to resolve these claims and complaints. The aim is to seek a provisional agreement to settle past differences, with a view to moving ahead together with the task of rebuilding the Club and returning it to top level football. Any such provisional agreement would be put to members for approval, by way of a consultation.
Mediation is a voluntary and confidential process in which relevant parties seek to resolve disputes with the assistance of a trained independent and impartial mediator. The mediator cannot impose a solution, but uses his or her skills to bring the parties together. The letter that has been sent proposes that mediation takes place in early July, to allow time for responses to be provided to the letter. While it is a voluntary process, mediation is increasingly being seen by courts as a necessary first step before any formal court proceedings are taken and costs sanctions can be applied for unreasonably failing to mediate. The Trust is duty bound to explore all available legal avenues to protect the interests of the Trust and our members. If mediation were refused or the process proved unsuccessful, and if Trust members support such action, future court proceedings are possible.
If a potential resolution is achieved via the mediation process, it will be set out in a binding, written settlement agreement. However, we can assure our members that any agreement will not be finalised unless it is approved by Trust members as part of a formal consultation exercise.
Members should be aware, however, that if the offer of formal mediation is accepted, that it is a confidential process. This means that the Trust Board will be limited in what we are able to report during the mediation process, unless or until a provisional agreement is reached (or alternative options are identified) on which members can be consulted.
We will update members as soon as we are able to provide further information.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team
|  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |  |
| Trust Update... on 20:51 - May 18 with 2635 views | MattG |
| Trust Update... on 20:49 - May 18 by Phil_S |
Isn't it basically saying that the Trust is taking the first natural step of legal action? |
I'm no legal beagle but wouldn't the previous "negotiations" demonstrate good faith on the part of the Trust, i.e. mediation by another name? |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:52 - May 18 with 2624 views | NeathJack |
| Trust Update... on 20:49 - May 18 by AngelRangelQS |
I know that but what chance to the trust stand if they ask people not to share things and they come straight on here and do the very thing they’re asked not to do. If a journo posts it then at least it hasn’t come from a fan.
Not that it says anything remotely interesting really |
For clarification purposes, the "bizarre" comment was aimed at the Trust, not at yourself. |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:52 - May 18 with 2624 views | IAN05 |
| Trust Update... on 20:49 - May 18 by Phil_S |
That'll be nothing to do with GDPR |
Over cautiousness you think ? |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:52 - May 18 with 2618 views | SwansNZ |
| Trust Update... on 20:49 - May 18 by Jackfath |
I'm not allowed to tell you. |
OK, I could probably guess - have the Trust have jumped into action and started legal proceedings as they should have done at least a year ago? |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:52 - May 18 with 2610 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 20:51 - May 18 by MattG |
I'm no legal beagle but wouldn't the previous "negotiations" demonstrate good faith on the part of the Trust, i.e. mediation by another name? |
Yes I think they add weight to the legal claim as well but the way I have read this is this is formal mediation which if unsuccessful will lead to a courtroom battle I assume |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:53 - May 18 with 2603 views | AndyNak |
That’s my take on it Phil. I don’t for one second think that first para was written because the Trust think they’re being clever excluding non-members. It is surely due to the legal advice they were given. I wouldn’t have shared it. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:53 - May 18 with 2602 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 20:52 - May 18 by IAN05 |
Over cautiousness you think ? |
Cautious lawyer/mediator at a guess | | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:54 - May 18 with 2575 views | Jackfath |
| Trust Update... on 20:52 - May 18 by SwansNZ |
OK, I could probably guess - have the Trust have jumped into action and started legal proceedings as they should have done at least a year ago? |
Yes, they're making sure they do everything by the book so that when they finally are able to get them into court they are not criticised for not trying absolutely every avenue open to them. Sensible really. But you're right, should have been done a while back. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Update... on 20:54 - May 18 with 2567 views | AguycalledJack |
| Trust Update... on 20:51 - May 18 by MattG |
I'm no legal beagle but wouldn't the previous "negotiations" demonstrate good faith on the part of the Trust, i.e. mediation by another name? |
If this is regarded as a letter before action as per relevant legal protocol all avenues to achieve settlement have to be considered. The courts at this moment in time are encourageing the approach taken by the trust. If mediation fails and they progress to issuing proceedings the trust can then point to the fact that mediation has been attempted but failed. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:54 - May 18 with 2562 views | Wingstandwood |
| Trust Update... on 20:48 - May 18 by pencoedjack |
Marcham your going to clink  |
Sorry accidentally uparrowed there, MJ has moral decency and righteous standards on his side...I donated a large amount of my own money to that shower of sh#t only for it to turn into a complete and utter obscenity that has betrayed its members and the very reason for its existence in the first place. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:54 - May 18 with 2554 views | FerrisBuellerJB |
How much have these idiots spent on solicitors? Their’s must be raking it in |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:55 - May 18 with 2550 views | max936 |
| Trust Update... on 20:47 - May 18 by Jackfath |
You're not a member. You shouldn't have read it. |
I'm so sorry please accept my sincere apologies and please feel free to add further thoughts musing's etc. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:56 - May 18 with 2518 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 20:53 - May 18 by AndyNak |
That’s my take on it Phil. I don’t for one second think that first para was written because the Trust think they’re being clever excluding non-members. It is surely due to the legal advice they were given. I wouldn’t have shared it. |
Honestly? I think the fact that they have asked people to not reproduce it means they have probably covered themselves with the legal advice
It was always likely to be reproduced and nobody from the Trust has asked me to remove and I would imagine the reaction is being monitored | | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:56 - May 18 with 2518 views | monmouth |
A deal was agreed and then reneged up on by one party, and it was a shite deal. Now they want to pursue non binding mediation? I hope this is just a necessary part of getting to court, but seeing the yanks unilateral withdrawal, it’s tough to see why necessary. Still I’m no legal Johnny.
I should imagine the first para was under legal advice. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:57 - May 18 with 2486 views | Rancid |
I can't ever recall being warned not to read something.It ain't a line you hear much or ever. |  | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:58 - May 18 with 2468 views | Jackfath |
| Trust Update... on 20:56 - May 18 by Phil_S |
Honestly? I think the fact that they have asked people to not reproduce it means they have probably covered themselves with the legal advice
It was always likely to be reproduced and nobody from the Trust has asked me to remove and I would imagine the reaction is being monitored |
Holy Shit, we are being monitored! | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:58 - May 18 with 2466 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 20:56 - May 18 by monmouth |
A deal was agreed and then reneged up on by one party, and it was a shite deal. Now they want to pursue non binding mediation? I hope this is just a necessary part of getting to court, but seeing the yanks unilateral withdrawal, it’s tough to see why necessary. Still I’m no legal Johnny.
I should imagine the first para was under legal advice. |
Its the first step of legal action and the right one. | | | |
| Trust Update... on 20:58 - May 18 with 2461 views | PozuelosSideys |
So the Trust now look to litigation when the value of their shareholding is at its lowest in almost a decade?
Nice work plebs |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:58 - May 18 with 2444 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Trust Update... on 20:49 - May 18 by Phil_S |
Isn't it basically saying that the Trust is taking the first natural step of legal action? |
Correct, the offer of mediation is necessary as a first step. |  |
| |
| Trust Update... on 20:59 - May 18 with 2426 views | monmouth |
| Trust Update... on 20:58 - May 18 by Phil_S |
Its the first step of legal action and the right one. |
Fair enough | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 21:01 - May 18 with 2390 views | Phil_S |
| Trust Update... on 20:58 - May 18 by PozuelosSideys |
So the Trust now look to litigation when the value of their shareholding is at its lowest in almost a decade?
Nice work plebs |
The legal action is over the sale.
If the result is that the yanks must buy then it will have to be at the par value of 2016 | | | |
| Trust Update... on 21:02 - May 18 with 2349 views | Wingstandwood |
| Trust Update... on 20:58 - May 18 by Phil_S |
Its the first step of legal action and the right one. |
Ahhhh good news then? Apologies to SCST and each and every official if criticism is unjust?
Legal action? If it happens? Then forever heroes officals and organisation shall become! | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 21:03 - May 18 with 2320 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Trust Update... on 21:01 - May 18 by Phil_S |
The legal action is over the sale.
If the result is that the yanks must buy then it will have to be at the par value of 2016 |
What is that value out of interest? | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Trust Update... on 21:05 - May 18 with 2284 views | AndyNak |
| Trust Update... on 20:56 - May 18 by Phil_S |
Honestly? I think the fact that they have asked people to not reproduce it means they have probably covered themselves with the legal advice
It was always likely to be reproduced and nobody from the Trust has asked me to remove and I would imagine the reaction is being monitored |
Of course it was going to be reproduced and I assume mainly as a legal box ticking exercise but if sharing in any way gave the yanks any kind of advantage then I wouldn’t want to be responsible for it. I’m no lawyer (I haven’t changed careers since I last saw you!) so definitely not my area of expertise but would rather be over-cautious with this. Probably unnecessarily so but I want what’s best for the club and the thought of them having anything over us if/when we get to court makes me feel sick. | |
| |
| Trust Update... on 21:05 - May 18 with 2283 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Trust Update... on 21:03 - May 18 by PozuelosSideys |
What is that value out of interest? |
So the yanks would be buying a % of a championship club for the price of a premiership club? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.