| American Investors 22:18 - Oct 28 with 13260 views | Jock_The_Jack |
Back in town this weekend apparently!? |  | | |  |
| American Investors on 10:38 - Oct 31 with 1291 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 10:23 - Oct 31 by longlostjack |
Can you name a couple of investors who have invested upwards of a 100 million and seen a return on their investment ? I'm struggling- the Glazier brothers perhaps? |
Exactly the £100 million was just a figure i made up. The point I'm making is what would be the point of someone investing money into the Swans to asset strip ?. The only real assets the club have apart from the training grounds are the players and if you sold the best players - the result would most probably be relegation and therefore that investment would be worthless. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 10:39 - Oct 31 with 1286 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 10:11 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
The shareholders will not sell to the trust - how many times has this got to be said, before it sinks in ?. |
Ah right, so people should just let it go then? |  | | |
| American Investors on 10:43 - Oct 31 with 1273 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 10:39 - Oct 31 by Phil_S |
Ah right, so people should just let it go then? |
People can do what they want, it ain't going to change a thing. | |
| |
| American Investors on 10:46 - Oct 31 with 1271 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 10:43 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
People can do what they want, it ain't going to change a thing. |
You just simply never know, public opinion can be a very strange thing... | | | |
| American Investors on 10:47 - Oct 31 with 1267 views | longlostjack |
| American Investors on 10:38 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
Exactly the £100 million was just a figure i made up. The point I'm making is what would be the point of someone investing money into the Swans to asset strip ?. The only real assets the club have apart from the training grounds are the players and if you sold the best players - the result would most probably be relegation and therefore that investment would be worthless. |
Examples abound of "investors" fleecing football clubs be it symphoning off TV monies, merchandising rights or even future ticketing revenues! |  |
| |
| American Investors on 10:48 - Oct 31 with 1281 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 10:46 - Oct 31 by Phil_S |
You just simply never know, public opinion can be a very strange thing... |
What public opinion ? To dismiss any investment out if hand before anyone really know what's on offer is ridiculous. | |
| |
| American Investors on 10:51 - Oct 31 with 1272 views | waynekerr55 |
| American Investors on 10:48 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
What public opinion ? To dismiss any investment out if hand before anyone really know what's on offer is ridiculous. |
Well it would be nice if there was investment on the table - as opposed to the share sale with zero investment into the club as per John Moores et al. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 10:51 - Oct 31 with 1272 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 10:48 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
What public opinion ? To dismiss any investment out if hand before anyone really know what's on offer is ridiculous. |
The public opinion that the 25% is important....try and keep up with the discussion point rather than changing it to something else
The last "investment" was dismissed because it was not one and everyone knew what was going on because it was explained
This time around it is nothing more than rumour so theres nothing to dismiss | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| American Investors on 10:58 - Oct 31 with 1260 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 10:51 - Oct 31 by Phil_S |
The public opinion that the 25% is important....try and keep up with the discussion point rather than changing it to something else
The last "investment" was dismissed because it was not one and everyone knew what was going on because it was explained
This time around it is nothing more than rumour so theres nothing to dismiss |
Where is this public opinion ? It's not something i hear talked about at Swans games.
Even at the last trust forum only a couple of people mentioned it and Huw Jenkins answered it and even if there was a large % of swans fans agreeing with you (no evidence to suggest there is), that doesn't make them right does it. | |
| |
| American Investors on 11:04 - Oct 31 with 1255 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| American Investors on 09:25 - Oct 31 by Nookiejack |
When Financial Fair Play (FFP) was introduced I thought that essentially guaranteed our PL status indefinitely - as it would take too much time for promoted Championship sides to build competitive PL squads.
With the relaxation of FFP and also with relative ease which promoted Chamiponship sides like Leicester, Watford, Southampton have been able to gain foothold then move up league - now think PL is incredibly competitive and no guarantees anymore.
You have the top 6 teams with billionaire backers/very large fan bases (Man City, Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs). Then add Everton and West Ham (moving into Olympic stadium with associated increase in revenue and I understand paying relatively inexpensive rent for stadium). These top 8 teams generate year in year out at least £20m more revenue than we do. (Even with Shared TV rights). Which equates to additional 2 X £10m players each year and 8 X £10m over 4 year contract cycle.
So realistically we are in a league of remaining 12 teams and only need to be in bottom 3 (bottom 25%) for our shareholders to lose a lot of money.
A number of studies have shown strong correlation between a clubs wage bill and finishing PL position. The higher wage bill normally means higher finishing position.
We have been seriously punching above our weight and should never take for granted what club has achieved over last few seasons.
The key thing to our future success is probably getting future recruitment of goal scorers right - as per Michu and Bony. Also Ayew looks like he could be on way to achieving what they achieved for us.
We have to get a return from the outlay we spend on goal scorers - whereas big clubs can afford to buy another few £10m+ strikers if get it wrong or existing ones lose form - suffer serious injury.
Look at Bournemouth this season - they looked competitive but then lost their top goal scorers of serious injury. A top club can just go back into the market.
I rate us about 14th in PL on current form and thank goodness massive fan base clubs like Newcastle, Sundeland and Villa can't get their act together.
I would be getting a bit edgy if I was an existing shareholder - stay up for one more season with associated massive increase in TV revenue - would probably then be a good time to sell. |
Interesting that you thought FFP would guarantee our PL status. We then had the surprising (at the time) revelation that Swansea City voted against FFP along with five other clubs.
It turns out that FFP was nothing like what we envisaged and is barely worth the paper it's written on.
You make a good point that without the phenomenal success of Michu, Bony and Ayew (so far) we would have been a lot worse off and possibly flirting with relegation in each of the last three seasons. Whilst that's stating the obvious it is sobering to think that we are always a couple of poor buys away from big trouble in this league.
We have to hope that the club can keep up its amazing recent record of appointing the right managers and acquiring top players with what is a very small budget by PL standards.
I would wager that it's extremely unlikely that any new owners of the club will match the present incumbents in recruiting the right managers and players whilst returning a profit in order to get a return on their "investment". Of courses, they could be philanthropists who are prepared to throw money at it just for the glory but I won't be holding my breath. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 11:11 - Oct 31 with 1244 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 10:51 - Oct 31 by Phil_S |
The public opinion that the 25% is important....try and keep up with the discussion point rather than changing it to something else
The last "investment" was dismissed because it was not one and everyone knew what was going on because it was explained
This time around it is nothing more than rumour so theres nothing to dismiss |
And also if there is nothing to dismiss then surely there is nothing oppose. In fact what's the point of this thread ?. | |
| |
| American Investors on 11:11 - Oct 31 with 1243 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 10:58 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
Where is this public opinion ? It's not something i hear talked about at Swans games.
Even at the last trust forum only a couple of people mentioned it and Huw Jenkins answered it and even if there was a large % of swans fans agreeing with you (no evidence to suggest there is), that doesn't make them right does it. |
But you clearly agree its important to assist the Trust at this time of relative affluence?
After all, a 25% stake in the club now could be invaluable for our future security
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| American Investors on 11:17 - Oct 31 with 1227 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 11:11 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
And also if there is nothing to dismiss then surely there is nothing oppose. In fact what's the point of this thread ?. |
To remind?
Must admit I was surprised if came up in the last forum, and I was disappointed in the answers of Dineen and indeed Jenkins. To say that exceeding the 25% threshold doesn't provide greater safeguards is plain wrong. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 11:20 - Oct 31 with 1219 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 11:11 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
And also if there is nothing to dismiss then surely there is nothing oppose. In fact what's the point of this thread ?. |
This internet business is a bit confusing for you isn't it? | | | |
| American Investors on 11:23 - Oct 31 with 1213 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 11:11 - Oct 31 by Phil_S |
But you clearly agree its important to assist the Trust at this time of relative affluence?
After all, a 25% stake in the club now could be invaluable for our future security
This post has been edited by an administrator |
What happens in the future if lunatics get voted in to position of power within the trust ?. | |
| |
| American Investors on 11:31 - Oct 31 with 1196 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 11:23 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
What happens in the future if lunatics get voted in to position of power within the trust ?. |
If that were to be the case then that is why there is an election process and the members have the chance to remove them
This has all been explained before, I think it was the last time you tried to argue with the grown ups and made the childish points you try to make so often | | | |
| American Investors on 11:33 - Oct 31 with 1191 views | Neath_Jack |
| American Investors on 11:17 - Oct 31 by Uxbridge |
To remind?
Must admit I was surprised if came up in the last forum, and I was disappointed in the answers of Dineen and indeed Jenkins. To say that exceeding the 25% threshold doesn't provide greater safeguards is plain wrong. |
Can i ask a question please.
If what Dineen said was plainly wrong, why didn't you, or another member of the Trust that was present, challenge it? It's been mentioned previously in this thread too.
I don't but into the thought that the meeting wasn't the place to address it, but you and others left others come away from there believing what was said to be the truth, because if you guys are not going to challenge it, then us mere mortals would assume it as being correct.
This is why some, a few, a lot, of people get the idea that the Trust is to comfortable with the directors.
FWIW, i'm firmly against the "investment". |  |
| |
| American Investors on 11:35 - Oct 31 with 1187 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 11:20 - Oct 31 by Phil_S |
This internet business is a bit confusing for you isn't it? |
Yes it is - because as soon as someone (me  ) posts something you disagree with - you seem to take it personally and there's me thinking the trust was democratic ?. | |
| |
| American Investors on 11:39 - Oct 31 with 1176 views | tomdickharry |
| American Investors on 11:11 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
And also if there is nothing to dismiss then surely there is nothing oppose. In fact what's the point of this thread ?. |
There is no point in this thread as Phil has already said all based on unsubstantiated rumor. |  | | |
| American Investors on 11:39 - Oct 31 with 1176 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 11:33 - Oct 31 by Neath_Jack |
Can i ask a question please.
If what Dineen said was plainly wrong, why didn't you, or another member of the Trust that was present, challenge it? It's been mentioned previously in this thread too.
I don't but into the thought that the meeting wasn't the place to address it, but you and others left others come away from there believing what was said to be the truth, because if you guys are not going to challenge it, then us mere mortals would assume it as being correct.
This is why some, a few, a lot, of people get the idea that the Trust is to comfortable with the directors.
FWIW, i'm firmly against the "investment". |
A fair question. I tend to agree it should have been challenged publicly. It was privately.
I'm not sure what too comfortable means. I think the yankee business demonstrated the Trust's independence. | |
| |
| American Investors on 11:41 - Oct 31 with 1167 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 11:39 - Oct 31 by tomdickharry |
There is no point in this thread as Phil has already said all based on unsubstantiated rumor. |
So how can you oppose an unsubstantiated rumour ?. | |
| |
| American Investors on 11:43 - Oct 31 with 1160 views | johnlangy |
| American Investors on 10:11 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
The shareholders will not sell to the trust - how many times has this got to be said, before it sinks in ?. |
What you say HAS sunk in. I also understood it when others have said it. The only people who can say they will definitely not sell to the Trust are the shareholders and i'm simply suggesting a situation where they might.
Everyone is concerned that the shareholders may just sell to the highest bidder regardless of whether it's good for the Club. I'm putting forward a scenario whereby they could still come out of this with a huge amount of money and also be able to walk the streets of Swansea with their heads held high. | | | |
| American Investors on 11:46 - Oct 31 with 1150 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 11:35 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
Yes it is - because as soon as someone (me ) posts something you disagree with - you seem to take it personally and there's me thinking the trust was democratic ?. |
The Trust is democratic, this is an internet forum that has no relation at all to the Trust | | | |
| American Investors on 11:47 - Oct 31 with 1148 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 11:46 - Oct 31 by Phil_S |
The Trust is democratic, this is an internet forum that has no relation at all to the Trust |
Never. | |
| |
| American Investors on 11:47 - Oct 31 with 1148 views | Neath_Jack |
| American Investors on 11:39 - Oct 31 by Uxbridge |
A fair question. I tend to agree it should have been challenged publicly. It was privately.
I'm not sure what too comfortable means. I think the yankee business demonstrated the Trust's independence. |
Thanks.
At the end of the day, it's a balancing act that the Trust have to deal with, but the statement made by Dineen going unchallenged there and then did make me wonder why.
I have every confidence in the Trust to carry on the fight for us.
I can't articulate what i meant by too comfortable to be honest. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
