| Interview with the Owners 19:05 - Sep 3 with 45820 views | Headmaster |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45396360
"Swansea City's owners have warned it could take years for the club to return to the Premier League as they confront the "harsh reality" of relegation." [Post edited 3 Sep 2018 19:08]
| | | |  |
| Interview with the Owners on 13:41 - Sep 4 with 2019 views | TheResurrection |
Yes I do, 100%
But not just now, I'm talking about all the time, the Trust should be a pest in their ear constantly, about every little thing.
That's the first thing I would have wanted to achieve if I'd ever got involved with the Trust, to improve communication between owners and Trust and in turn to improve the quality of information the fans get.
The Trust, in my opinion, have deliberately downplayed matters, ignored key frustrations, not corrected posters and allowed fears to grow.
Why they're doing this is because they're still smarting from the fact the club was sold on their watch from under their noses.
No matter what, the Trust should always put the future of the Club above their own agenda. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 13:44 - Sep 4 with 2016 views | wobbly |
Have they taken it all back out? The interview doesn’t explicitly say that everything they put in has come back. It’s ambiguous, and they could still be outstanding. The follow up questions on amount of loans madd, and whether all or only some are repaid right now is not asked, or was asked but refused to answer.
If they have taken all of some of it back, then the rate of interest is important. As that is technically ‘money they are taking out of the club’ - that the trust says they are scrutinising the accounts to spot. If so, either the trust missed it (bad), they didn’t disclose it in the accounts (worse), the loans were at the same as the bank loan rate so the club is neither better or worse off (so technically you can argue they haven’t taken money out of the club as they would have paid it anyway) or the trust were wrong when they said the owners hadn’t taken money out of the club.
Or, the loans they made to the club haven’t yet been repaid. They might be accruing interest but not yet paid. But in which case the owners still have ‘new money’ in the club underpinning operations.
All interesting follow up questions, some of which we know were vetoed by the americans according to the journo on Twitter. Do you still think they are irrelevant? | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 13:45 - Sep 4 with 2004 views | TheResurrection |
I think the wisdom is spot on.
Take Brentford and their simple fans as an example. They wanted a huge slice, relatively speaking, of our parachute payments and the price for Woods was artificially increased because of this. We weren't allowed for that to happen as we've been caught before and rightly criticised for it. In our opinion Woods was not worth what they wanted and we stuck to our guns. Good. Learning.
Clubs will see we won't be taken as mugs and if they want to do business with us they can do it fairly. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 13:46 - Sep 4 with 2000 views | TheResurrection |
Bless.
You've literally got no clue.
'lol'
PS still waiting for an answer from you. Don't be afraid to actually put something of note out here? | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 13:52 - Sep 4 with 1991 views | longlostjack |
Of course that would have been the best case scenario. That’s hypothetical now though isn’t it so let’s see what their exit strategy will now be in terms of maximising returns for their investors. Sitting back and assuming that everything will be fine and taking their statements at face value is not good enough. Was it you that said that the last management accounts seen by the Trust were for June? If so that’s a worry in itself but perhaps there’ll be an update on Wednesday.
As to the second question- yes I think it’s interesting. Sort of flies in the face of the austerity message if it was paid for with club funds don’t you think? There again there may be a perfectly good explanation.
Best be vigilant and critical than sleep walk into a situation where it’ll be too late to do anything. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 13:55 - Sep 4 with 1972 views | TheResurrection |
Whether they are still to be repaid isn't the most important aspect here as they will be.
The article states they did it last season and again this. So it implies that they've been repaid for the previous time and we're unsure about the current loan. They're not doing this to make a few quid on interest, even if they are,what they're doing it because we're maxed out on our borrowing facilities so it's a necessity..
But it's not overly important, they're helping out with cashflow and have gone public with that. You'd like to think by them doing so it's all legit. And in fairness to go into the finer details with sports journalists isn't overly necessary either.
I'm going to presume the Trust knows about this unless corrected and are happy with what's gone on. If that's the case, that's the important bit. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 13:55 - Sep 4 with 1976 views | MattG |
I was talking specifically now and specifically in terms of the share sale / mediation.
Don't disagree with you about the need to maximise communication between the Trust and Yanks but that has to be a two-way thing and isn't easy to achieve when they are rarely in Swansea. | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 13:58 - Sep 4 with 1969 views | MattG |
It could have merit where we are looking to buy players but, from what the Yanks have said, we are more likely to be selling, in which case I would say it is less helpful. | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:00 - Sep 4 with 1948 views | TheResurrection |
Like I said.... Be a pest. Keep on and on and go public at every chance if they're deliberately being evasive.
What did George Double U state.... We're going to smoke em out.
This seems to be more than achievable with the timing of this latest interview. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:01 - Sep 4 with 1943 views | TheResurrection |
When it comes to transfers I wouldn't pay any attention to statements made by owners, chairmen or managers, for a multitude of reasons. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:05 - Sep 4 with 1931 views | wobbly |
I’m a bit more sceptical than you on the importance or otherwise. But whatever.
Anyway, it’s the timing of this that’s more interesting. Makes you wonder what might come out at the forum tomorrow that they wanted to get ahead of! | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:07 - Sep 4 with 1925 views | MattG |
Earlier you said that knowledge of our parlous financial position might stop selling clubs trying to over-charge us for players.
If that's the case then the same must surely apply to buying clubs, i.e. they are likely to try making low-ball offers on the basis that we might just accept them. | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:09 - Sep 4 with 1912 views | TheResurrection |
I agree and it's a bit of an own goal these silly forums that we have to wait for the ceremony of it all rather than just getting on with things | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:09 - Sep 4 with 1917 views | JJJack |
Chrissy. I’ll tell you what’s to argue with about their interview and I’ll keep it simple:
1) In generic terms they refused to answer certain questions- why? One can imagine that they don’t want certain parts of the truth to emerge. Henceforth, we have received a “loaded” or “biased “ response. As ever, with the Yanks.
2) They are lying about the fees received for players this summer. This is because the buying clubs also need to disclose accurate figures- so that will become obvious in time. If they were telling the truth then why on earth wouldn’t they breakdown the transfer fees to fully explain what happened? This is precisely how they will take back income from the club and this will be shown in the fullness of time.
3) Finally, the comments that “you’re stuck with us as owners”. Well, ok, a bit flippant would be the kind interpretation. But it alarms me that they have this tone. One has only took at DC Unitexand their other clubs to see a pattern of failure and deceit emerging.
Not for me to tell anyone how to think- and incidentally, I pretty much agree with your opinions on Jenkins. However these men are not only proven liars but also, highly incompetent- an unarguable fact based on the performances of their clubs/teams. Where they may have succeeded is in successfully extracting money from said clubs to the satisfaction of their hedge fund cohorts. But in buying a club in a system that has relegation as a fundamental principle they simply failed to realise the risk and as such have ended up with a hugely reduced asset (also through blatantly poor negotiations and appointments). They won’t walk away (yet) because they can’t. So they will stay and try to make money on the side by misleading us on transfer fees etc.
I could be open minded. But with K&L , nope, I’ve watched their past behaviour as I’ve just watched Lloyds Bank hedge fund arm shut down my employer putting 2000+ out of work. I know their game, I know what they will do- exactly. I know more than I can say on here.....for fact.
We must get rid of them because seriously mate, they will potentially ruin us. They’ve done well in appointing Potter. But Chrissy, give me 1 other thing they have done well for us in 2 years?? | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:11 - Sep 4 with 1901 views | TheResurrection |
'might', 'might not', I don't think it matter that much. I was just disagreeing with you that there was 'no' merit to it. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:13 - Sep 4 with 1903 views | irishswan546 |
Was thinking that myself. | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:15 - Sep 4 with 1889 views | TheResurrection |
Your first point alone...
We don't know what questions were asked and why they were avoided. Unless we do its a completely moot point. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:16 - Sep 4 with 1892 views | JJJack |
I agree and would ask exactly this...what have they done but consistently make mistakes, poorly judged acquisitions and relatively poor appointments? What was even their initial plan? They are just poor businessmen who know not what they do but can talk a good game. They’re out of their depth and their actions now scream of pure desperation. | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:17 - Sep 4 with 1886 views | TheResurrection |
Your second point is absurd.
Phil regularly comes on here to correct posters about how much we've got for Siggy. The real figures are always wildly different from the assumed ones. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:19 - Sep 4 with 1877 views | JJJack |
Ok. But that’s fairly academic mate as it’s just interview questions, I admit. It’s everything else that terrifies me. I’ll gladly let you or anyone else put my mind at rest. But that’s gonna be difficult. | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:19 - Sep 4 with 1871 views | TheResurrection |
Maybe you missed the relevant post an hour or so as well as
Teabag then 😂 | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:22 - Sep 4 with 1865 views | dobjack2 |
Potter is definitely a Jenkins recommendation and one the owners have listened to. Appointment? I wouldn’t have thought he has the power to hire, or fire for that matter, on his own anymore. | | | |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:22 - Sep 4 with 1855 views | TheResurrection |
FFS the comment you're stuck with us is them just being Americans...
Let's face it Jasey, you're really scraping the barrel with those points aren't you.
Fans are getting desperate, it's quite comical. | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:26 - Sep 4 with 1836 views | TheResurrection |
Poor multi million pound business men.
Geez...
It's hopeless innit 😂 | |
| |
| Interview with the Owners on 14:27 - Sep 4 with 1827 views | Darran |
He has been known to change his mind. lol | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
