 | Forum
Reply | Consultation Papers - Cost of Legal Action
at 17:53 27 Jul 2017
Question 1 — option 1 - Everyone votes on this question to either accept the offer (yes) or reject the offer (no)
Qustion 1 is the first one to be assessed from the vote as follows
— Majority of members vote to accept the offer (yes) - then the offer is accepted and question 2 becomes irrelevant
— If the majority of members vote not to accept the offer then the offer is rejected and the majority result of question 2 decides the outcome
(in a dead heat the wording suggests — given the majority have not voted against it then the offer would be accepted!)
Qustion 2 — Everyone also votes on this question — but it will only come into play if the majority of members vote against accepting the offer in question 1 — choosing either of the options
Option 2 - pursue legal action
Option 3 — do not pursue legal action and continue as we are
We were promised a vote on legal action — this is different it is actually first and foremost a vote on the deal.
It can be seen that those that want to pursue the legal option, although having a vote in both questions, only have a single pattern of voting
and that is No to Question 1 (reject the deal) and for question 2 — choose option 2 - Pursue legal action
Those that don’t want legal action have 2 bites of the cherry
Yes to accepting the deal — and if they fail to get a majority on that — Yes to stay as we are
Of course both option 1 and option 3 give us no protection whatsoever against share dilution and the Trust previously said in writing that they could not work with such an option.
I did mention this recently but was immediately (after just 2 posts on the Offer - as a Trust member politely and constructively trying to raise important and factual concerns relating to the Trust) once again summarily banned from the Trust Chairs website (the only forum that I am aware of where Board members were posting on this matter and using their official knowledge to answer forum members questions and concerns in an open debate).
Please don’t tell me this is OK at all, let alone to stifle debate and control privilege access to Trust information on important concerns in a matter of such vital importance to our future. |
| Forum
Reply | Who dares wins
at 21:08 21 Jul 2017
Thanks and well done for sticking with my meanderings to the punch line |
| Forum
Reply | Who dares wins
at 20:28 21 Jul 2017
Consultation papers - option 1 top bullet point
"Trust to sell 5% of its existing 21.1% shareholding to the Americans immediately"
This statement very misleading and could create confusion both on that bullet point and the following 2 bullet points.
It suggests that the Trust is selling 5% (ie 1/20th) of its holding, rather than 5% of the club
5 of its existing 21% shareholding of the club - might be slightly clearer
It is important to make clear that all these %s given for purchases by the Americans relate to a portion of the total club - rather than a portion of our shareholding (as the wording incorrectly suggests the latter). |
| Forum
Reply | Who dares wins
at 20:07 21 Jul 2017
"If the Americans hold on for another 5 years AND we have remained in the Premier League for that entire time, the Trust will have sold half."
Is even this correct?
The Trust Chair has referred to the deal potentially giving us a "war chest" of £11 million (although we might posit the time for war, if ever, is now, when you are holding all the best cards) - this was an overestimate and also did not subtract the £2.2 million which it was known would be due for Capital Gains Tax from the amount stated.
The full deal would indeed eventually sell just short of 1/2 our holding. However.....
My understanding is that only the purchase from us of 5% of the club is guaranteed (less than 1/4 of our 21% holding). £4 Million after tax. How much of that will be frittered away on legal advise and action if the Americans revert to type once the current threat of legal action is removed and we remain in a minority relationship with them holding all the power.
As you say we need to remain in the PL for an additional 5 years (presumably not starting until the end of this coming season at the earliest) in order for them to eventually (at 0.5% of the club at a time) purchase another 2.5% of the club in total (which may be sometime never and only, if as you say, they even last that long). That will also be a pretty good deal for them if we stay in the PL and they can buy them 5 years or more into the future at last years prices.
Even if the 5 years in the PL condition is ever met within their tenure, it only eventually makes a sale of 7.5% of the club - scarcely more than 1/3rd of our 21% holding. Giving us about £6 million
The final 3% is worse than meaningless as there is no compunction on the Americans to buy these, but they have the option to force us to sell them at any time over the next 2.5 years (which they obviously will only do if it is beneficial to them).
Of course as well as the drag giving the Americans full control over the price and timing of selling the Trust out of the club. We also have no protection from share dilution.
The Trust previously said the following about the threat of share dilution (as part of a written statement)
“Unfortunately, short term protection without any form of long term protection is not something we could work with”
Yet amazingly the deal now recommended by the Trust no longer even gives us short term protection against this. |
| Forum
Reply | Anyway Starky is dead
at 10:57 21 Jul 2017
Welcome back Flacky - one of my all time favourite posters - or should that be usernames |
| Forum
Reply | Interesting Trust Email
at 09:57 7 Jul 2017
For goodness sake how desperate must you be to bow down to the new majority shareholders poor offer before saying a thing like that? It is pretty outrageous given you are fully aware that the sellouts did it for personal greed whilst lying and trying to openly cheat the trust and supporters, to line their own pockets.
On the other hand those in favour of legal action and fair price sale are trying to achieve funds to best achieve the fundamental objectives of the Trust, to ensure the ongoing survival of professional football in Swansea (with no personal advantage whatsoever).
Believe me in the early days I was very much against a full/majority sale of our shares and thought it went against what we stood for. I have come to see it is one of the only ways forward now. Whilst the new majority shareholders progress the club, brilliant it is all we want, when things go downhill and they put their get out plan into action (which rest assured they will have) then we can step in, the significant funds giving us the best possible chance of saving the club.
Any recent mirage of power for the Trust created by the new majority owners will evaporate with approval of the offer, which removes all our actual power and gives the majority owners total power to do as they wish - including totally sell the Trust out of the club at a time and price of their choosing. Know people by their past actions, they will not hesitate when we have already shown our total lack of resolve in this matter. We will end up backing away or futilely using the few mil they have thrown our way to prevent them diluting our shares further; or as suggested by a board member to create legal challenge to fight their future actions, which they will know we have not the balls to follow up, as we will have demonstrated to them here if we do not stand firm in light of a strong legal case.
A beautiful side effect of legal action is it seems our only chance to throw formal light of day and put onto public record the very apparent lying cheating divisive self-interested greed of the sellouts. Can you also imagine how the majority shareholders will feel towards Sir Huw et al who will have told them from the outset we would just roll over for a few crumbs, as they thought we would when they tried to get us to declare the shareholder agreement invalid.
Remember most cases are settled out of court but we must show resolve and that we are not to be fussed with. We should stand firm for a full settlement. How much more will allowing them to walk over us unsettle the club when they learn they can do just as they like and will continue to do so at whatever cost so long as it furthers their aim of profit.
I do however fear your tongue is far removed from your cheek |
| Forum
Reply | Why is this Forum so addictive
at 13:05 14 Apr 2017
Perhaps like me attacked on this website when a 'poster' (frustrated because they could not win a debate) turned to abuse and posed as a child so he could accuse me of child abuse - even though previous posts of his suggested he had a car.
When I called him on this by posting a stock picture of a toddler with a Tonka car I was repeatedly accused of child abuse.
What did our mod (who liked to continually stalk me and repeatedly call me vile / horrendous c*nt etc. and repeatedly ban me for his own amusement) do when that behaviour and child abuse allegations were formally complained of?
Why publically tell me I should not post pictures of children (yes that is the ex mod who uses this site as his own photo album — including tiny children).
What happened to the poster who repeatedly accused me of child abuse and also created a second ID to carry out a two pronged attack on me?
Nothing. He already had a previous history of abuse and was allowed to go on and use the same 2 IDs to attack other posters, even though a subsequent post from said mod made it absolutely clear he knew this person had these 2 IDs.
Perhaps this was just another tool of the Trust Chairs personal website, to create traffic by vilely abusing members.
Perhaps I will raise the vile abuse Phil facilitated on his own website against the members he is supposed to represent, at the next trust meeting and also ask
- Why Phil allowed such repeated vile abuse on his website by his mod, against polite posters who had contributed much to support the Trust’s position on that website
- Why he allowed the members he is supposed to represent to be repeatedly abused and banned for fun
- Why he ignored / made no response to my repeated reports of said abuse even though he had openly asked for abuse to be reported
- Why I was long term banned without any warning or wrongdoing when trying to point out the misdirection that was allowed to continue on this site re serious limitations which rendered almost useless, the protections provided by the Chair’s dream Trust shareholding of 25%
- Why without comment the vice chair was allowed to misdirect on the other site by falsely denying the above limitations and also publish untruths about the Trust Director receiving no payment
- Why Phil allows his website preferential access to Trust Board members answering posters questions. Repeated suggestions the Trust should have its own forum to discuss Trust issues (with abuse not allowed) which could be accessible by all sites, just ignored.
Let’s hope that is recorded too |
| Forum
Reply | Trust Statement
at 16:25 13 Apr 2017
My apologies re your username - seems I was using the Scottish derivation
So as per the strategy - pretty much what we are doing now excellent - at one stage it seemed you were suggesting we ignore our counsel based on your concern of us taking legal action.
I would still be interested to know what your connections are in relation to this case |
| Forum
Reply | Trust Statement
at 15:25 13 Apr 2017
"Company law does not follow moral law" well well well, explains a lot
that would be why we engaged a barista rather than a philosopher
So we could wake up and smell the coffee
Just as well really we would have trouble if we were dealing with moral law, as that is a sand more shifting than company law — we only need to look at peoples actions and their underlying motives to understand that.
Don’t you worry about the Trust jumping in with both feet, they could never be accused of that, more like that gentle paddle that has just reached the nether regions, after that first sharp intake of breath then you just go right on walking.
However not to seem ungrateful, thank you for adding your strategy we will put it on the whiteboard for the rest of the class to see
1. GIVE UP — um I can see the appeal — well to you at least
But oh the sweet irony - tadger suggesting we bend over and assume the position |
| Forum
Reply | Trust Statement
at 13:17 13 Apr 2017
But the collusion / disadvantage / prejudice goes significantly beyond that
As far as your point ....
"Regarding the warranty there is no SHA it is quite common I thought for these warranties to be given and a disclosure made against them. This disclosure could have said the SHA is present but defective could it not? "
Not in this case
because I offered Jason the knew there was one, but told that it wasn’t valid option - but he didn't go for that
he choose instead the didn’t think there was a Shareholders Agreement at all
I would also be interested to know what your connections are in relation to this case as to come on here as a new poster and seemingly scare monger in relation to a substantially dissimilar case, seems to come from those who might be getting concerned over their own legal position. |
| Forum
Reply | Trust Statement
at 11:27 13 Apr 2017
Not sure but I think the Res may also have been talking about comments like this upfont
“we don’t see this evening as a look back at what happened at the share sale, we have had those discussions” |
| Forum
Reply | Trust Statement
at 11:20 13 Apr 2017
Indeed - seems like our own little project fear
and welcome to Todger - impressive first posts
Although all this talk of Christmas makes me think of matters abortorial |
| Forum
Reply | Trust Statement
at 22:42 12 Apr 2017
Thanks guys ;)
From my POV I can only guess at the answers to the questions
Timing of this perhaps because the recording of the meeting was not released until later, then taking the time to go through it in detail. Or perhaps a more specific motive although goodness knows why.
As far as what Phil said, I wasn’t very happy because it felt like Phil was protecting the buyers and depriving us the opportunity to question the sellers on these important issues. I was glad these questions were still asked.
However I don’t like to prejudge as it is possible Phil gave the buyers his best assurance about guiding the meeting in order to get them to agree to attend (although strangely it seemed to me Jason wanted to get his version out there, he certainly wasn’t reticent).
Then there is the whole building bridges thing. So there are valid reasons that can be given in relation to attempting to be seen to be constructively moving forward and avoiding difficult questions, but for me that time has come and gone and hard questions need to be asked.
As I had given Jason a bit of a grilling I did go and very briefly shake hands with him after the meeting and say that although I was unhappy with many things, I would like to thank them for coming and him for answering my questions. Then we immediately left the meeting, in fact we were one of the first out of the car park. As Phil was stood right next to Jason perhaps I should have got them together and asked more questions whilst I was on a hot streak. |
| Forum
Reply | Trust Statement
at 19:31 12 Apr 2017
Ok it was me that asked Jason these questions about the Shareholder Agreement at the meeting, so I have a fair insight into what went on….
I repeatedly pressed Jason about how we could trust them when the sale was conducted illegally in relation to the Shareholder Agreement. I was floored when he latterly very clearly said they had asked the Trust “are you interested in us acquiring your shares as well”. Phil was sat right next to Jason when he said this
Despite a rebuttal now being issued, it is a pity Phil said nothing at the time, thus giving it a sense of accuracy. It was too important for the Trust to say nothing in this situation, implicitly adding veracity to these comments, such that it was printed in local and national media with attendant implication that they were willing to buy our shares. Same for the denials over the Shareholder Agreement.
There need not have been any argument, just a simple statement in the pauses that followed at the end for e.g. just to put on record that the Trust provided a copy of the Shareholder agreement to the buyers before the sale.
I would also comment that "the members will decide" and "no offer has been made" has been used again and again on this very website when being urged to pursue a sale on the same terms as the other shareholders. The important word being PURSUE.
In reality the Trust statement does not comment on whether or not Jason actually asked the question he stated. Also if it was asked:
- what the Trusts response was
- Was the implied willingness to buy our shares on equal terms an actuality and if so why it was not negotiated by both sides to an offer — so the members may actually decide
I was taken back by Phil’s introduction when he said “we don’t see this evening as a look back at what happened at the share sale, we have had those discussions” Well no we certainly had not had that opportunity with those culpable.
I had pressed Jason so much on his knowledge of the Shareholder Agreement that I could not push on the implied offer to buy shares without taking over the meeting, which seemed unfair to others that had equally valid questions and had been bold enough to question their conduct during the sale in the first place (despite Phil instructing us at the start of the meeting that we should only look to the future). It seems fortuitous that sale conduct was addressed as the repeated questioning on this topic has thrown to open record both internal inconsistencies between answers and on the face of the Trust Statement — deviation from intention.
It is all contained in the recording of the meeting which was posted here and is on the Trust website http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/04/07/audio-recording-of-trust-members-forum/
I thought given my central involvement in this it may be useful from the recording of the meeting to provide a transcript of the main 6 minute segment relating to the Shareholder Agreement so that it can clearly be seen by anyone, what was and was not said by JASON
(the comments in between labelled MY NOTE are merely my musings - I make further comments at the end of the transcript) ……
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 59:38 on the recording — after already been told by another member that their conduct both before and after the sale was not particularly trustworthy and is the elephant in the room. Every time we ask for some real facts you are very evasive.
JASON - asked what facts we wanted to know and I interjected…….
ME Why you colluded with the sellers to keep the Trust out of it, and why you went ahead with the sale that was against the Shareholders Agreement and hadn’t met with the requirements — the legal requirements of the Shareholder Agreement.
Now you talk about heart and honesty, how can we believe that when you excluded the people who would be your main shareholders alongside you? We can’t believe that and you’ve got a big job making us believe that.
After some stuttering / superficial comments — understand your hurt great community great opportunity etc….
JASON - The majority of shares were held by shareholders other than the Trust and there was a chairman and er we engaged with the shareholders of the er club who owned almost 80% of the club and (pause) we went through the processes they thought they they directed us. Now (pause)
1:01:16 — 29 ME ??? More pushing by me difficult to pick up word for word — but if necessary this should be possible
JASON - Sure so what I would say is we certainly did not collude with these shareholders
(MY NOTE — if you worked with them to exclude the Trust — one of the main shareholders - from initial discussions / agreements, then from my understanding of the English language you most certainly did collude with them to exclude the Trust, although understand why you would want to deny this)
we had to negotiate with them they were the other side of the table
(MY NOTE — were the other main shareholders on the other side of the table, didn’t one of them attest that the main driver in this had fixed up the deal behind their back)
and we had to figure out could we acquire their shares and what price and what was the role we would play ahh
1:01:45 ME ??? — further comment by me pushing him on their actions
JASON - So in March of 2016 prior to us having er er a con
(MY NOTE - think he was going to say contract here and changed his mind and said deal — possibly because a pre-sale contract already existed at this stage and it’s admission did not look good)
a deal with any shareholders we met with the Supporters Trust. In August of 2016 well the end of July early August. 4 or so months later we consummated er a transaction with those shareholders.
(MY NOTE - consummated an interesting term - relating to enacting something to which an agreement was already in place)
So yes there was a period of time prior to March of 2016 when we were getting to know shareholders erm and we were around the club, I was. Learning about the club, learning about its history learning about how it was run, em but the first day that we formally told the Supporters Trust that we were interested in acquiring the shares. 4 months went by before we closed the transaction to buy those shares
(MY NOTE interesting again this period used as indication there was sufficient consultation with the trust, however to my recall it was well publicised that they wanted to push the sale through much quicker but there were delays — perhaps because of concerns re the shareholders agreement — also what real negotiations took place with the Trust during this time)
So erm eh I just wanted to make sure that that from our perspective maybe 4 months wasn’t enough time to communicate with the Supporters Trust prior to investing in the club maybe it should have been 6 months or 8 months
(MY NOTE — interesting admission yet as noted above the actual plan had been to conclude the sale much more quickly than it actually was)
erm but we certainly were communicating with the Trust prior to making any investment in the club.
1:02:53 — ME — but you already had done so much, you had done so much before that, which the Trust was excluded from. For instance we may in the situation, where, you may be very nice now in the situation that we are in while things are a bit in the air legally, but who knows what will happen in the future from people who excluded, the Trust.
Now we may have wanted to sell our shares. It may be a position that because we can’t do much to effect the club we could do that just as a fans group not as shareholders and we have been disadvantaged because we have not had the opportunity to sell our shares at the price that everyone else has. Because we could put that money aside and maybe save the club in future if needs be, while you went ahead.
And you know you say all the right things and I would expect nothing less from the two of you. And that is no insult or anything but you are going to say the right things aren’t you?
But obviously your interests is doing the best with the club that you can and that is great for us, but you are going to have a get out, if things go wrong, and that’s when it comes down to us the Trust. But we’ve been disadvantaged because we weren’t given first refusal for instance if we wanted to buy more shares, which was part of the Shareholder Agreement. And you knew that didn’t you? You knew about the Shareholder Agreement.
JASON - So number one em tut er we as soon as that that meeting was held with the Trust in March of 2016 erm I met with eh lawyers of the Trust and I said would you all be interested and we are four months away maybe three months six months, I didn’t know at that time, away from the transaction
Would you, are you interested in us acquiring your shares as well (murmurs from the room in response to that statement) so I did ask that question and there were four months that went by before we consummated the transaction that’s number one
Number two erm without getting into you know the details that that as best as I recall them
(MY NOTE —as best as I recall them — now you have my full attention)
We were not aware of any other arrangement where Shareholders Agreement erm with any other parties. We approached the shareholders to acquire their shares erm and when we did that erm (pause) we were not aware of any any other arrangements buddying? the parties
ME 1:05:24 So you were totally unaware of the shareholder agreement? You knew nothing of it?
JASON - It was represented to us that there was no shareholder agreement at the time that we came in to acquire the club
ME 1:05:35 but you knew there was one, but that it was told to you that it wasn’t valid? Is that correct? (pause)
Or are you saying you didn’t think there was a shareholders agreement at all
JASON — Yes
ME 1:05:50 — So you had never heard of a shareholder agreement?
JASON - so we had heard rumblings that there were different agreements between the parties, we’d never seen the document (pause)
we asked to see it
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point (which raises so many more questions) in the pause that follows, the original questioner comes back in, talking about faith in the sellers, which is fair enough given the admirable patience shown to my lengthy interjection.
However IMHO sticking it to Huw et al is secondary to protecting the Trust’s value in the shares. These buyers are not children led by the nose by the sellers, but hard headed businessmen who colluded with the sellers to exclude their main future partners from initial negotiations and agreements. This speaks of an arrogance and total disregard for the fans and their shareholding by both sides. It also does not bode well for the future when we have no real power to enforce any protections, so they may basically do as they wish.
IMHO the exact words and contradictions made in relation to my questions to Jason on the Shareholders agreement in this recorded meeting are of some significance. Surely they were obvious questions and were directly asked before?
In relation to other comments I specifically (well before sale completion) urged that the Trust write to the buyers, telling them that they were taking part in a sale not legally conducted, as the provisions of the Shareholders Agreement were not being adhered to. I had no doubt the buyers smart lawyers (and hence the buyers) already knew this as it was all over the forums and they would have been negligent not looking for issues there. I have no idea if the Trust did formally notify the buyers about this, but my intention was it would have cut dead any claim of being unaware.
Experience of Americans taking over significant businesses here would suggest that they are fastidious (and rightfully so) about any existing obligations that they would be buying into, especially those that would limit their control to run the business to their plans and advantage.
There seems a significant mismatch between this and the laisse faire attitude which when asked about the shareholder agreement ranged from
- “without getting into you know the details that that as best as I recall them, We were not aware of any other arrangement where Shareholders Agreement erm with any other parties”
- “It was represented to us that there was no shareholder agreement at the time that we came in to acquire the club”
- In response to question: are you saying you didn’t think there was a shareholders agreement at all - answered “yes”!
- When pressed once again to confirm they knew nothing about the Shareholder Agreement — “so we had heard rumblings that there were different agreements between the parties, we’d never seen the document”
- Then following a pause added — “We asked to see it”
Difficult to compute. You asked to see a document you did not know about and the details around which it seems you could not previously really remember. Also you are saying you did not see a copy, but had no problems pressing ahead with the sale without it.
Not buying it, and in those circumstances neither should you have been.
In fairness though I would thank Jason for answering my questions in so far as it was practical to pursue them in such a meeting — it was a far more enlightening and mannered response than I have enjoyed from our Trust in the past.
The Trust should represent the future of football in Swansea and it would be beyond negligent if the member’s serious concerns and circa £20 million (that could go a long way to ensuring the aims of the Trust) were thrown down the drain at the preference for a non speaking part at the top table.
IMHO any conflicts in the buyers statements should add support to the case for forced buyout at the original price paid to the sellers (funded by either or both, sellers and buyers, depending on their precise contribution to the prejudiced position they contrived to put the trust in vis a vie our shareholding and resultant reduction in power and saleability and thus value). We should formally press them on this and give them the opportunity to settle in full out of court, with the clear and certain intention to take legal action if a full and equitable settlement is not made.
Of course the members should decide on the sale, but should be given full and frank information on risks / rewards including the value of the sale and how it can be used to save the club in future v’s the very marginal influence we now have as shareholders (which may, to much the same net effect, be discharged as a fans group). We should consider the potential massive decrease in share value if we hold onto the shares; also the possibility of shrinking shareholding % via share dilution (even potentially concluding in forced buy out over time at much inferior terms). Both sides of the case should be clearly presented including by those that favour selling as the best option for the Trust and its fundamental aims. This would ensure fair representation from both sides.
All these issues clearly raised ad infinitum on the forums pre-sale, as were the serious limitations on any protections afforded by the Chairs dream target of 25%+ ownership, which was seen as a panacea by many (even being brought up again at this meeting). Most concerning, the vice chair pre-sale incorrectly disputed the fundamental weakness in the 25%+ ownership aim, even though it had been clearly pointed out that the majority owners could dilute our shares down again removing any protection the 25%+ holding afforded (even if we could achieve it). This misled fans into thinking 25% was an ongoing safe haven.
Note re share dilution
- The issuing of new shares (resulting in share dilution — i.e. a reduction in % of the company owned by the shareholders existing shares) is a valid method to create capital and an alternative to taking out loans.
- Given their holding / voting rights our new owners have the power without our approval to issue new shares and buy the large majority of them themselves.
- We may also buy a number of new shares in proportion to the percentage of our existing holding (meaning overall we would maintain our % shareholding) but need the funds to do this
- If we do not have the funds to do this (and currently we do not), our allocation may be bought by the new owners or others. The additional shares issued and bought by others would mean that although we owned the same number of shares as previously, they now equate to a smaller percentage of the company
- Over time if our shareholding % falls below a certain level it is possible we could be forcibly bought out if the majority holding wanted to do that for any reason |
| Forum
Reply | exiledclaseboy ~ What a lovely fella he really is
at 22:39 30 Oct 2014
I am sorry Darran is mentioning an ex manager grounds for banning
Is pointing out hypocrisy grounds for banning
I thought our whole modus operandi was based on honesty - or is that just a meaningless strap line
Get over your obsession Darran why the need to try and control people all the time?
Face it if all the people you disagree with were banned - what would you have left to contribute, would you still go on continually moaning post mortum? |
| Forum
Reply | The demise of the chuckle Brothers
at 21:39 30 Oct 2014
Does that apply even if you went on an ad hoc wine tasting holiday to Paris
Oh no silly me that was not only abuse it was also a slick lie from someone who was media savvy enough to orchestrate a misinformation campaign against our then manager.
Shame they just didn't just send him a letter! |
| Forum
Reply | Fernandez Card Rescinded by FA
at 21:03 30 Oct 2014
Oh yea but that would be time restricted 
Not the only bad decision to go against Hull and for us either
The Lord giveth and and the Lord taketh away
Roll on the FA cup I am pining for some European sun with a dash of football
#Iamaspoiltbrat |
| Forum
Reply | Fernandez Card Rescinded by FA
at 18:20 30 Oct 2014
Excellent news and vindicates Fernandez who seemed genuinely bemused.
Didn't see it but clapped him off as I thought given what I had seen of him the worst it would be IMO was carelessness.
Can understand ref interpreting it differently with the speed of it and was concerned that they would not rescind given it was a reasonable decision viewed without the benefit of reply / slow mo. So common sense prevails.
Perhaps we can restart the COC from the sending off. Lets send an open letter to Bren asking him to agree to that - sure he will agree it is only fair. Also removing Blotti for his shocking simulation. |
| | Spratty
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | -526 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | -526 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
