| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? 20:33 - Oct 28 with 14554 views | NickyJack |
There's lot of anger towards Jenkins at the moment but what about the owners? Here me out. He was the owner of the club for 12 /13 years and no one can deny the excellent job he did. Perhaps we would still be in the lower divisions without him. Then when he and the rest of them sold their shares, which I agree was a mistake but I genuinely believe that he meant the best for the club and that he thought someone with more money would be better suited and/or just didn't want the stress of it anymore. Some would say he cashed in and left it to someone else but I don't see it like that. HOWEVER, the yanks promised they would take the club to the next level (we were a mid-table side at the time, so therefore challenging for Europe) and have spent NO MONEY OF THEIR OWN WHATSOEVER. Last season, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as it was new to them But this season, its not honest mistakes, it's ignorance. According to this ( http://www.transferleague.co.uk/swansea/english-football-teams/swansea-city-tran since they took over, our net spend has been NEGATIVE £33 MILLION. I appreciate there are expenses other than buying players, but it should never be that low. We have sold player upon player for big bucks and not spent the money to replace them, and the big signings we have made have been utter sh*t. The single biggest reason for our decline has been lack of investment and poor recruitment, so surely our anger should be equally, if not more, towards the yanks? |  | | |  |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:36 - Oct 28 with 8443 views | Humpty |
If he meant the best for the club why did he hide the sale from the trust? |  | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:41 - Oct 28 with 8418 views | NickyJack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:36 - Oct 28 by Humpty |
If he meant the best for the club why did he hide the sale from the trust? |
It was wrong yes, but what will protesting about it achieve now? If we make our discontent shown towards Kaplan & Levien, wishful thinking perhaps, but maybe they will reach into their pockets. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:46 - Oct 28 with 8386 views | E20Jack |
Next level can mean lots of things. It doesn't necessarily mean on the pitch. I also have not heard the Americans say anything of the sort. Not saying they didn't - but help me out and point me towards a quote?
The only next level comments I heard was from Jenkins who, as I have said before, was correct in what he said. They did need to sell so we can go to the next level (just Premier League level) in terms of our commercial department driving external revenues. FFP demanded it.
I have literally no anger towards the Americans. They are venture capitalists, everyone knows it and they aren't even attempting to try to be seen as anything else. You don't blame a dog for barking.
For me, my anger largely lies with the Trust who could have taken measures to protect the club and let's not forget it was their whole reason for existing. As annoyed as I am with Jenkins and co... they were in it for money and ended up acting exactly that way, anyone thinking otherwise is naive.
The only people at the club who had a sole obligation to protect it has failed time and again to do it. The rest had other obvious motives that came before the protection of the club, so it is only expected they exploit those reasons (cash) as a top priority. [Post edited 28 Oct 2017 20:51]
|  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:50 - Oct 28 with 8373 views | Humpty |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:41 - Oct 28 by NickyJack |
It was wrong yes, but what will protesting about it achieve now? If we make our discontent shown towards Kaplan & Levien, wishful thinking perhaps, but maybe they will reach into their pockets. |
I'm pointing out that it's bollocks to say HJ did what he thought best for the club.
He didn't. He did what was best for Hugh Jenkins. Along with the rest. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:56 - Oct 28 with 8343 views | vetchonian |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:46 - Oct 28 by E20Jack |
Next level can mean lots of things. It doesn't necessarily mean on the pitch. I also have not heard the Americans say anything of the sort. Not saying they didn't - but help me out and point me towards a quote?
The only next level comments I heard was from Jenkins who, as I have said before, was correct in what he said. They did need to sell so we can go to the next level (just Premier League level) in terms of our commercial department driving external revenues. FFP demanded it.
I have literally no anger towards the Americans. They are venture capitalists, everyone knows it and they aren't even attempting to try to be seen as anything else. You don't blame a dog for barking.
For me, my anger largely lies with the Trust who could have taken measures to protect the club and let's not forget it was their whole reason for existing. As annoyed as I am with Jenkins and co... they were in it for money and ended up acting exactly that way, anyone thinking otherwise is naive.
The only people at the club who had a sole obligation to protect it has failed time and again to do it. The rest had other obvious motives that came before the protection of the club, so it is only expected they exploit those reasons (cash) as a top priority. [Post edited 28 Oct 2017 20:51]
|
You blame the trust? It was the trust who prevented the first potential sale going through remember which is why HJ then kept the trust out of this deal until it was a fete accomplish |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:56 - Oct 28 with 8337 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:41 - Oct 28 by NickyJack |
It was wrong yes, but what will protesting about it achieve now? If we make our discontent shown towards Kaplan & Levien, wishful thinking perhaps, but maybe they will reach into their pockets. |
It is still amazing how people do not understand who owns the club. It is not a case of Kaplan and Levien reaching into their pockets, they simply represent the people who put the money forward to buy the club, you're not going to get every single one of these anonymous people to agree in unison to invest x amount.
Perhaps if The Trust felt like they could make this common knowledge to the majority of the fan base, instead their priorities are finding a new mobile phone and creating sub groups to discuss things that should have been dealt with years ago. |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:03 - Oct 28 with 8309 views | NeathJack |
"They did need to sell so we can go to the next level (just Premier League level) in terms of our commercial department driving external revenues."
Can you please expand on that and explain what the yanks have done that could not have been done by simply employing a competent commercial manager instead?
Thanks. |  | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:05 - Oct 28 with 8302 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:56 - Oct 28 by vetchonian |
You blame the trust? It was the trust who prevented the first potential sale going through remember which is why HJ then kept the trust out of this deal until it was a fete accomplish |
Not sure I would use the word blame. Maybe I would, but not thought too deeply about blame, at the moment I am just commenting on just who I naturally direct my anger and disappointment at after a given set of events.
Yes they did put a spanner in the works the first time around, which was their job remember. It was not a spectacular unachievable fight for the underdog, some David v Goliath fight - they were essentially the largest shareholder in the company doing simple due diligence.
Unfortunately due to the set up of the Trust, something that was pointed out several times before hand, lines got blurred and secrets were able to be kept. Too much trust (small t) was allowed to develop within the Trust.
When this eventually became apparent not enough reform was done. So when we had a vote to do the right thing and take the fight to them on behalf of the club - those same people swayed the voters to go the opposite way of the legal advice that they wasted those members money on.
Now they have predictably stalled again and the silence is deafening.
Again - There is only one group of people set up with the sole brief to protect the club. So to be angry at a known thief for stealing, a known drug addict for taking drugs, a known venture capitalist for trying to make money seems futile. They are doing their job perfectly to the brief intended. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:09 - Oct 28 with 8289 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:03 - Oct 28 by NeathJack |
"They did need to sell so we can go to the next level (just Premier League level) in terms of our commercial department driving external revenues."
Can you please expand on that and explain what the yanks have done that could not have been done by simply employing a competent commercial manager instead?
Thanks. |
You would need to ask the old shareholders that. They clearly didn't identify that as an issue, hence they would have done it. I would assume they couldn't work out what they needed in order to compete even at our own level. The Americans have a CV with former top level global sports clubs so their experience is obviously far greater than a roofer and a vending machine owner. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:11 - Oct 28 with 8278 views | NOTRAC |
£5m for a £50,000 investment to bring the club up to the next level.You have to be joking.It was done for pure greed and ,in my opinion, if it would have meant the club going out of existence , they would still have done it. [Post edited 28 Oct 2017 21:12]
| |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:16 - Oct 28 with 8238 views | NeathJack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:09 - Oct 28 by E20Jack |
You would need to ask the old shareholders that. They clearly didn't identify that as an issue, hence they would have done it. I would assume they couldn't work out what they needed in order to compete even at our own level. The Americans have a CV with former top level global sports clubs so their experience is obviously far greater than a roofer and a vending machine owner. |
I don't need to ask them, the answer is obvious and that was to employ a competent Commercial manager.
However, the commercial side of things had the square root of f*ck all to do with why they sold. That was purely down to the fact that they wanted to cash in for their own financial gain and screw everything else. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:18 - Oct 28 with 8207 views | TheResurrection |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:56 - Oct 28 by vetchonian |
You blame the trust? It was the trust who prevented the first potential sale going through remember which is why HJ then kept the trust out of this deal until it was a fete accomplish |
That is factually incorrect and maybe one of the main reasons why the Trust hasn't gone to Court. |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:19 - Oct 28 with 8215 views | NickyJack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:46 - Oct 28 by E20Jack |
Next level can mean lots of things. It doesn't necessarily mean on the pitch. I also have not heard the Americans say anything of the sort. Not saying they didn't - but help me out and point me towards a quote?
The only next level comments I heard was from Jenkins who, as I have said before, was correct in what he said. They did need to sell so we can go to the next level (just Premier League level) in terms of our commercial department driving external revenues. FFP demanded it.
I have literally no anger towards the Americans. They are venture capitalists, everyone knows it and they aren't even attempting to try to be seen as anything else. You don't blame a dog for barking.
For me, my anger largely lies with the Trust who could have taken measures to protect the club and let's not forget it was their whole reason for existing. As annoyed as I am with Jenkins and co... they were in it for money and ended up acting exactly that way, anyone thinking otherwise is naive.
The only people at the club who had a sole obligation to protect it has failed time and again to do it. The rest had other obvious motives that came before the protection of the club, so it is only expected they exploit those reasons (cash) as a top priority. [Post edited 28 Oct 2017 20:51]
|
So you are happy for the Americans to asset strip? You don't blame a dog for barking, but then again, you don't let a wild dog into your living room,let it bark the house down while doing your nut in, without chasing the bastard off! | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:21 - Oct 28 with 8206 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:16 - Oct 28 by NeathJack |
I don't need to ask them, the answer is obvious and that was to employ a competent Commercial manager.
However, the commercial side of things had the square root of f*ck all to do with why they sold. That was purely down to the fact that they wanted to cash in for their own financial gain and screw everything else. |
But its not the obvious answer is it. In fact it is the opposite. They did not appoint one in their whole tenure. Which means if you asked them if the Commercial manager was an issue then you would probably get a different answer to the one you have assumed.
But you seem to be addressing the wrong point. Whether you believe that was or was not a reason for a sale is not really relevant. I agree with you that the driving force behind the sale was to line their own pockets.
My point is that there is only so angry you can be towards people who clearly are in something to make money - acting that way. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:26 - Oct 28 with 8169 views | TheResurrection |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:11 - Oct 28 by NOTRAC |
£5m for a £50,000 investment to bring the club up to the next level.You have to be joking.It was done for pure greed and ,in my opinion, if it would have meant the club going out of existence , they would still have done it. [Post edited 28 Oct 2017 21:12]
|
You'll have to keep reminding people which side of the fence you're on as you are seemingly jumping the fence with every post.
Pure greed? Yeah stick an emotive word like greed in there for full effect why don't you.
They had earned a right to make their money, they had more than earned that most basics of rights.
The shares, or £50k they invested was worth fack all to anyone for a long, long time.
It was them that turned that £50k into £5m and people on here, self facking righteous to the extreme, are trying to say they would have done something differently.
By the way, the off the field departments are twice as good as before and we're still there in the big league..... 7 years later. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:27 - Oct 28 with 8177 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:19 - Oct 28 by NickyJack |
So you are happy for the Americans to asset strip? You don't blame a dog for barking, but then again, you don't let a wild dog into your living room,let it bark the house down while doing your nut in, without chasing the bastard off! |
Of course not. But I don't believe they will. Asset stripping is an eventual inevitability, but in my opinion that wont be done for a few owners time yet, there is still scope in other areas to turn and flip a profit.
But not being happy and blaming someone are different things. I was not happy with Michael Howard playing but I cant say I was ever angry at him or ever blamed him for anything - it was not his fault he was not very good, it was not his fault he was selected to play... so a rubbish player acting like a rubbish player, its hard to be angry at him.
The Americans are venture capitalists, if you think they will not act like venture capitalists suddenly just because its Swansea then you are off your head. They do not support us.
The only people in the whole process I am angry with are those that could have done things to stop/fight it and did neither. They did not act as their brief was intended. Everyone else did. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:27 - Oct 28 with 8174 views | NickyJack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:11 - Oct 28 by NOTRAC |
£5m for a £50,000 investment to bring the club up to the next level.You have to be joking.It was done for pure greed and ,in my opinion, if it would have meant the club going out of existence , they would still have done it. [Post edited 28 Oct 2017 21:12]
|
His share value reached that out of hard work though, no? | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:28 - Oct 28 with 8158 views | TheResurrection |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:16 - Oct 28 by NeathJack |
I don't need to ask them, the answer is obvious and that was to employ a competent Commercial manager.
However, the commercial side of things had the square root of f*ck all to do with why they sold. That was purely down to the fact that they wanted to cash in for their own financial gain and screw everything else. |
Their careful and successful managing of their own property (shares) you mean?
Theirs, their money, their success, their earnings. Not you from Neath who did fack all?! | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:30 - Oct 28 with 8161 views | NeathJack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:28 - Oct 28 by TheResurrection |
Their careful and successful managing of their own property (shares) you mean?
Theirs, their money, their success, their earnings. Not you from Neath who did fack all?! |
So was any of what I said incorrect? | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:33 - Oct 28 with 8140 views | TheResurrection |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:30 - Oct 28 by NeathJack |
So was any of what I said incorrect? |
Not important, what is important is you're acting like a self righteous Kunt spouting a whole lot of hot air.... Constantly.
It wasn't your facking money
It wasn't your facking decision.
Repeat til it facking sinks in. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:34 - Oct 28 with 8145 views | NeathJack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:33 - Oct 28 by TheResurrection |
Not important, what is important is you're acting like a self righteous Kunt spouting a whole lot of hot air.... Constantly.
It wasn't your facking money
It wasn't your facking decision.
Repeat til it facking sinks in. |
Obviously it wasn't incorrect then.
Thanks for interacting sweetie. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:37 - Oct 28 with 8135 views | NickyJack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:27 - Oct 28 by E20Jack |
Of course not. But I don't believe they will. Asset stripping is an eventual inevitability, but in my opinion that wont be done for a few owners time yet, there is still scope in other areas to turn and flip a profit.
But not being happy and blaming someone are different things. I was not happy with Michael Howard playing but I cant say I was ever angry at him or ever blamed him for anything - it was not his fault he was not very good, it was not his fault he was selected to play... so a rubbish player acting like a rubbish player, its hard to be angry at him.
The Americans are venture capitalists, if you think they will not act like venture capitalists suddenly just because its Swansea then you are off your head. They do not support us.
The only people in the whole process I am angry with are those that could have done things to stop/fight it and did neither. They did not act as their brief was intended. Everyone else did. |
Referring to your point on MH. No you don't blame him, you would blame the person above him, the manager, for selecting him. There isn't anyone above the owners, so imo you must chase them off until they never comeback. You can't just sit back and do nothing. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:42 - Oct 28 with 8115 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:34 - Oct 28 by NeathJack |
Obviously it wasn't incorrect then.
Thanks for interacting sweetie. |
You probably are right, but I don't know what point it makes?
You are angry at the old board for acting in the way people with shares that wish to make money act?
The only people that will ever own us that won't act that way - will be the Trust, and they seem hell bent on never putting themselves in a position to be able to do so. Every other owner (barring a highly unlikely scenario of an oil tycoon wanting to waste his money on us) we will ever have will be in it to make money.
I am disappointed the old owners didn't be more selective, I am disappointed they kept the Trust out of the loop - but at the end of the day they are acting as people in that position is expected to that wants their money.
We could have done a lot worse than these current Yanks btw. These are not the owners I am concerned about, it is the ones to come I am worried about.
The number 1 goal of the Trust as soon as this deal was done should have been to stop the inevitable passing of the club from owner to owner resulting in likely eventual asset stripping - by getting enough money to be able to acquire a majority shareholding at some point in the future. They failed to do this yet again. [Post edited 28 Oct 2017 21:48]
| |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:44 - Oct 28 with 8106 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:37 - Oct 28 by NickyJack |
Referring to your point on MH. No you don't blame him, you would blame the person above him, the manager, for selecting him. There isn't anyone above the owners, so imo you must chase them off until they never comeback. You can't just sit back and do nothing. |
Right, and who comes in then?
Think about this for a second before replying. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:47 - Oct 28 with 8097 views | SwansNZ |
I can’t say I feel that much anger towards the new owners, they are doing what the do — no surprise really. The new owners are investors, out to make money, nothing else. If they make money, they will be successful at what they do. They have no loyalty or real feeling towards the Swans, why would they? Jenkins and the gang on the other hand, could and should have done better. In the end, they just saw the US$$ and nothing else mattered. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
