| The future of SCFC 09:32 - Nov 11 with 42916 views | _ |
Can we start a thread to get some structure at the meeting night before West Ham. I'm not going to the game and won't be in the country that weekend and I've also heard the Q&A session can be a bit ad hoc let's say. Dav and ARQS have asked some serious questions.
Do you think it's possible for the ones going to go in ready with structured questions?
I wouldn't necessarily want these questions on a public forum but I'm sure anyone that wants something answered can get their questions to the Trust people or the ones attending that night.
That would only take just a little organising and a panel could decide the best say 10 questions to take to Leigh and Huw. I'm sure someone at the event could also set up a video link or at least record it? [Post edited 13 Dec 2014 15:26]
|  |
| |  |
| The future of SCFC on 13:55 - Dec 14 with 2236 views | perchrockjack |
Fair point dob and I DO HAVE RESEVRATIONS but who do we trust?
As for fans who live away from Wales, well ,is it in order for them to have an opinion.
If not all should be banned starting with the guy in NZ who stays up until God knows when to keep in touch.
THESE fans ,like him are the special ones. Those who just have to amble down to the stadium or drive a short distance; well really..
Only in our fan base could you find fans actually grading themselves as better (and they do) and incredibly disputing the credentials of others.
We support (watch) the team is commensurate with family and work issues; family always comes first. If all one has in life is a football team ,then its bad news.
This has all been said before and we re in the sewer again |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:29 - Dec 14 with 2202 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 22:23 - Dec 13 by Shaky |
I've never heard of a shareholders loan that isn't subordinated. Maybe you can google some examples for me as a matter of interest, but even if you manage to uncover something suitably exotic it won't change the fact the for practical purposes everything is.
And if this really is the structure under discussion that is quite right, so the Mercuns actually have some skin in the game aligning everybody's interests. |
Shaky - debt is debt. The ranking of debt into senior or subordinated is only relevant if there is more than one source of debt in a company and a company (or debt holders) want to know where they are in the pecking order of who gets what if that company is wound up as a result of some form of bankruptcy.
The Swans have no existing debt, therefore debt coming in, whether from banks or the Americans, will be the only debt in the business and will, therefore, be the senior debt in the business.
If any company only has one form of debt, it cannot be subordinated, since there is nothing for it to be subordinated to. I would imagine that the US investors would look for the security for the debt to be the stadium itself if that's what the loan is used for.
The thing you are getting confused about, is that if there is a bank loan (for example) a bank will often insist on that being the most senior debt (i.e. get first dibs if the company goes under). They will do that through the security they attach to that debt.
But that is not a given - there are plenty of examples where a bank and other debt will sit in a business with equal ranking. Or there may be several forms of debt, none of which come from a 'bank' loan. A shareholder could hold debentures that rank equally with any other debentures (see Cardiff City for example were Tan holds senior debentures).
Re the 'quasi equity' bit - again you are getting confused. There are certain situations where a loan from a shareholder will carry no characteristics of debt (i.e. no set repayment terms, no interest paid and so on). In THAT case, for tax purposes, it may be classed as equity (i.e. interest accrued but never paid, may be regarded as non deductible). Banks may also, when looking at a company's capacity to carry debt, may choose to ignore loans from shareholders (since they'll assume that a company won't bust themselves to pay these, but will defer any repayment).
Also, on a winding up, certain jurisdictions will treat shareholder debt with certain characteristics as though it was equity and will rank it below other creditors via different processes including equitable subordination. This is the case, for example in the US but is not done in the UK (eg. in the US, intercompany balances are treated as automatically subordinate on a winding up, in the UK they rank pari passu).
The only time in the UK where there is a different set of rules is on a thinly capitalised business (which the Swans is not) and in a situation where shareholder money is put in to a distressed business (which the Swans is not). Even then, the rules are only really relevant for tax purposes.
So in this situation, the debt is just debt, and it signifies nothing about 'skin in the game' or anything else. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 15:00 - Dec 14 with 2173 views | dobjack2 |
| The future of SCFC on 13:55 - Dec 14 by perchrockjack |
Fair point dob and I DO HAVE RESEVRATIONS but who do we trust?
As for fans who live away from Wales, well ,is it in order for them to have an opinion.
If not all should be banned starting with the guy in NZ who stays up until God knows when to keep in touch.
THESE fans ,like him are the special ones. Those who just have to amble down to the stadium or drive a short distance; well really..
Only in our fan base could you find fans actually grading themselves as better (and they do) and incredibly disputing the credentials of others.
We support (watch) the team is commensurate with family and work issues; family always comes first. If all one has in life is a football team ,then its bad news.
This has all been said before and we re in the sewer again |
I do hope that you don't think that I'm having a go at you or anyone else as that is not my intention, i apologise if my post could be read that way.
We are all human so when serious money gets put on the table temptation and the reality of personal security from that money must be huge. So who can be trusted in such circumstances?
From reading reports of the meeting and the reported comments of HJ, I would place more trust in HJ based on what I have read than on the non comments of any other shareholders. It would help supporters everywhere if collectively the shareholders were able to provide a statement that any deal would need to safeguard the interests of the trust.
However in my cynical world I suspect that we will not get this. | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:47 - Dec 14 with 2123 views | Shaky |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 14:29 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Shaky - debt is debt. The ranking of debt into senior or subordinated is only relevant if there is more than one source of debt in a company and a company (or debt holders) want to know where they are in the pecking order of who gets what if that company is wound up as a result of some form of bankruptcy.
The Swans have no existing debt, therefore debt coming in, whether from banks or the Americans, will be the only debt in the business and will, therefore, be the senior debt in the business.
If any company only has one form of debt, it cannot be subordinated, since there is nothing for it to be subordinated to. I would imagine that the US investors would look for the security for the debt to be the stadium itself if that's what the loan is used for.
The thing you are getting confused about, is that if there is a bank loan (for example) a bank will often insist on that being the most senior debt (i.e. get first dibs if the company goes under). They will do that through the security they attach to that debt.
But that is not a given - there are plenty of examples where a bank and other debt will sit in a business with equal ranking. Or there may be several forms of debt, none of which come from a 'bank' loan. A shareholder could hold debentures that rank equally with any other debentures (see Cardiff City for example were Tan holds senior debentures).
Re the 'quasi equity' bit - again you are getting confused. There are certain situations where a loan from a shareholder will carry no characteristics of debt (i.e. no set repayment terms, no interest paid and so on). In THAT case, for tax purposes, it may be classed as equity (i.e. interest accrued but never paid, may be regarded as non deductible). Banks may also, when looking at a company's capacity to carry debt, may choose to ignore loans from shareholders (since they'll assume that a company won't bust themselves to pay these, but will defer any repayment).
Also, on a winding up, certain jurisdictions will treat shareholder debt with certain characteristics as though it was equity and will rank it below other creditors via different processes including equitable subordination. This is the case, for example in the US but is not done in the UK (eg. in the US, intercompany balances are treated as automatically subordinate on a winding up, in the UK they rank pari passu).
The only time in the UK where there is a different set of rules is on a thinly capitalised business (which the Swans is not) and in a situation where shareholder money is put in to a distressed business (which the Swans is not). Even then, the rules are only really relevant for tax purposes.
So in this situation, the debt is just debt, and it signifies nothing about 'skin in the game' or anything else. |
500 words of waffle and not a single mention of a shareholder loan that isn't subordinated.
That is unless the Tan debentures really are senior and adequately secured. But the situation there is entirely different because Tan already controls the company.
However, you previously show that you don't understand the concept of seniority at all. The fact that there is no debt ranking above subordinated debt doesn't make it senior. Instead senior debt specifically means it is repaid prior to ordinary creditors, whereas subordinated debt has to get into line.
And that is precisely why the coupon on certain types of subordinated debt is not tax deductible, although if I am right about the structure here I would expect them to try to use an instrument that is. That would be something for a tax expert to consider, consider. |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 18:38 - Dec 14 with 2052 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 15:47 - Dec 14 by Shaky |
500 words of waffle and not a single mention of a shareholder loan that isn't subordinated.
That is unless the Tan debentures really are senior and adequately secured. But the situation there is entirely different because Tan already controls the company.
However, you previously show that you don't understand the concept of seniority at all. The fact that there is no debt ranking above subordinated debt doesn't make it senior. Instead senior debt specifically means it is repaid prior to ordinary creditors, whereas subordinated debt has to get into line.
And that is precisely why the coupon on certain types of subordinated debt is not tax deductible, although if I am right about the structure here I would expect them to try to use an instrument that is. That would be something for a tax expert to consider, consider. |
Not a single mention apart from the example of a shareholder loan that is not subordinated that is. These are the registered charges against Cardiff City.
EDGEDALE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 13 Oct 2010
TAN SRI DATO'SERI VINCENT TAN CHEE YIOUN
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 8 Sep 2010
ERSKINE FINANCE LIMITED
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 9 Jul 2010
TAN SRI DATO'SERI VINCENT TAN CHEE YIOUN
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 9 Jul 2010
PLAYER FINANCE FUND 1 SPC
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 2 Jun 2010
THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF
LEGAL CHARGE - OUTSTANDING on 8 Sep 2009
PMG ESTATES LIMITED
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 19 Jan 2007
PMG ESTATES LIMITED
CHARGE ON RECEIVABLES - OUTSTANDING on 19 Jan 2006
And the concept of subordination, as I tried to explain, is not the same in the UK as in the US which is what you keep referring to.
The ranking here is fixed charges, floating charges, unsecured creditors (there are some other bits & bobs as well, but those are the main ones). There can be two or more fixed charge holders, one of which is senior and others of which are subordinated but both will rank above ordinary creditors (who are unsecured). Floating charge holders also rank above them (other than there is a fund set aside over floating assets - from memory it's about £600k or so, or it was fairly recently anyway). And, finally, other than in the specific examples I gave, interest on shareholder debt is tax deductible in the UK.
Anyway - it's boring. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 18:39 - Dec 14 with 2049 views | Captain_Sham |
Does the future of SCFC stretch to forking out for decent cover at full back and keeper? |  |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 18:42 - Dec 14 with 2045 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 18:39 - Dec 14 by Captain_Sham |
Does the future of SCFC stretch to forking out for decent cover at full back and keeper? |
Well I for one would spend money on 2 full backs, a centre midfielder and another keeper before I would buy the stadium, but that's just me. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 18:47 - Dec 14 with 2036 views | _ |
| The future of SCFC on 13:47 - Dec 14 by Darran |
So you didn't go to games when you lived away?
F*ck me you're as big a fan as Nick Rees and Scouce. |
I couldn't go to games when I was away... I wasn't allowed.... But I still went ;-) | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 19:40 - Dec 14 with 1989 views | Shaky |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 18:38 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Not a single mention apart from the example of a shareholder loan that is not subordinated that is. These are the registered charges against Cardiff City.
EDGEDALE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 13 Oct 2010
TAN SRI DATO'SERI VINCENT TAN CHEE YIOUN
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 8 Sep 2010
ERSKINE FINANCE LIMITED
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 9 Jul 2010
TAN SRI DATO'SERI VINCENT TAN CHEE YIOUN
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 9 Jul 2010
PLAYER FINANCE FUND 1 SPC
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 2 Jun 2010
THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF
LEGAL CHARGE - OUTSTANDING on 8 Sep 2009
PMG ESTATES LIMITED
DEBENTURE - OUTSTANDING on 19 Jan 2007
PMG ESTATES LIMITED
CHARGE ON RECEIVABLES - OUTSTANDING on 19 Jan 2006
And the concept of subordination, as I tried to explain, is not the same in the UK as in the US which is what you keep referring to.
The ranking here is fixed charges, floating charges, unsecured creditors (there are some other bits & bobs as well, but those are the main ones). There can be two or more fixed charge holders, one of which is senior and others of which are subordinated but both will rank above ordinary creditors (who are unsecured). Floating charge holders also rank above them (other than there is a fund set aside over floating assets - from memory it's about £600k or so, or it was fairly recently anyway). And, finally, other than in the specific examples I gave, interest on shareholder debt is tax deductible in the UK.
Anyway - it's boring. |
Where did you get that list from?
Rather than a list of charges it appears to be a list of debentures, which in case anybody is in any doubt is another term for note and is generic denoting nothing in particular. And of the debentures listed none of those held by Tan have associated charges. | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 19:51 - Dec 14 with 1977 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 19:40 - Dec 14 by Shaky |
Where did you get that list from?
Rather than a list of charges it appears to be a list of debentures, which in case anybody is in any doubt is another term for note and is generic denoting nothing in particular. And of the debentures listed none of those held by Tan have associated charges. |
It's the list of charges held at Companies House Shaky. In this country, you don't have to register debt, you only register any charges against debt. That's why unsecured creditors don't show up on that list.
By the way - I am a shareholder & director of a private UK company. One of my fellow shareholders (a minority shareholder) has a loan to the company as well. I can assure you that he does not rank behind unsecured creditors and the debt is not subordinated.
I promise you it is very different in the UK and the US. A lot of jurisdictions have very specific rules about ranking order as you will know if you've ever been involved in the design of an EPM. | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 20:09 - Dec 14 with 1952 views | Shaky |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 19:51 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
It's the list of charges held at Companies House Shaky. In this country, you don't have to register debt, you only register any charges against debt. That's why unsecured creditors don't show up on that list.
By the way - I am a shareholder & director of a private UK company. One of my fellow shareholders (a minority shareholder) has a loan to the company as well. I can assure you that he does not rank behind unsecured creditors and the debt is not subordinated.
I promise you it is very different in the UK and the US. A lot of jurisdictions have very specific rules about ranking order as you will know if you've ever been involved in the design of an EPM. |
Right, you don't have to register debt, but nothing prevents you from doing so.
However, you have to register charges, and for the debentures held by Tan no associated charges are shown. QED, surely. | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 20:38 - Dec 14 with 1928 views | Starsky |
Oh FFS.
Neither of you are going to convince the other. Let it Go, Jeez! |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 20:47 - Dec 14 with 1916 views | dobjack2 |
| The future of SCFC on 18:42 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Well I for one would spend money on 2 full backs, a centre midfielder and another keeper before I would buy the stadium, but that's just me. |
Indeed what benefits are there to buying the stadium?
Will the rent from other users, if they still play there, or the increased income fund debt repayments? Are we going to try and attract concerts in the close season?
The potential downside of debt, securing the debt on the ground and funding the debt repayments which at other clubs has involved future season ticket sale money or parachute payments is clear.
I assume that the club would be buying the stadium and that it would not just be a change of landlord, with the new landlords also buying shares in the club. | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 21:12 - Dec 14 with 1890 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 20:09 - Dec 14 by Shaky |
Right, you don't have to register debt, but nothing prevents you from doing so.
However, you have to register charges, and for the debentures held by Tan no associated charges are shown. QED, surely. |
" 2 recent mortgage additions against the holding company (a finance company and Vincent Tan) but both Charges have the same wording and claim to be 'by way of first fixed charge' over freehold and lease hold property, stocks shares, licences, cash and just about everything else."
The above is from an accountants report on the accounts.
Shaky - the list for the last time is a list of charges. If there were no charges, it wouldn't be included on a list of charges. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 21:15 - Dec 14 with 1880 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 20:47 - Dec 14 by dobjack2 |
Indeed what benefits are there to buying the stadium?
Will the rent from other users, if they still play there, or the increased income fund debt repayments? Are we going to try and attract concerts in the close season?
The potential downside of debt, securing the debt on the ground and funding the debt repayments which at other clubs has involved future season ticket sale money or parachute payments is clear.
I assume that the club would be buying the stadium and that it would not just be a change of landlord, with the new landlords also buying shares in the club. |
Don't know - I assume it's to do with the grossing up for FFP rules and because it makes it more attractive to the Americans.
I find it interesting that Man City have just spent £200m on a training complex and yet haven't bothered to buy their stadium. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 21:38 - Dec 14 with 1842 views | LeonisGod |
| The future of SCFC on 13:55 - Dec 14 by perchrockjack |
Fair point dob and I DO HAVE RESEVRATIONS but who do we trust?
As for fans who live away from Wales, well ,is it in order for them to have an opinion.
If not all should be banned starting with the guy in NZ who stays up until God knows when to keep in touch.
THESE fans ,like him are the special ones. Those who just have to amble down to the stadium or drive a short distance; well really..
Only in our fan base could you find fans actually grading themselves as better (and they do) and incredibly disputing the credentials of others.
We support (watch) the team is commensurate with family and work issues; family always comes first. If all one has in life is a football team ,then its bad news.
This has all been said before and we re in the sewer again |
What are you on about Perchie? So the fans we've picket up globally recently are the special fans because they can be bothered to watch some games on TV? You seem yourself to be grading fans. This is nothing unique to us - the über-fan willy waving contest goes on in every club. Rightly or wrongly those that amble down to the ground every week and put money through the tills see themselfs as genuinely supporting the club. No point worrying about it as it will never change. but absolutely there should be a way for fans living away to have a voice. |  | | |
| The future of SCFC on 21:44 - Dec 14 with 1826 views | _ |
| The future of SCFC on 21:15 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Don't know - I assume it's to do with the grossing up for FFP rules and because it makes it more attractive to the Americans.
I find it interesting that Man City have just spent £200m on a training complex and yet haven't bothered to buy their stadium. |
Lis,
Can you forget the semantics just there for a second and explain to us what happened with Leigh Dineen acquiring his shareholding in the club and why the late Rich Lilicrap and current Trust board members were so dead against it? | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 21:51 - Dec 14 with 1809 views | dobjack2 |
| The future of SCFC on 21:15 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Don't know - I assume it's to do with the grossing up for FFP rules and because it makes it more attractive to the Americans.
I find it interesting that Man City have just spent £200m on a training complex and yet haven't bothered to buy their stadium. |
Thanks Lisa.
I haven't read any business case for buying the stadium.
i cannot believe that the club borrowing money to buy the stadium would be a requirement for someone to buy some shares in the club. Unless this is a takeover not simply buying shares | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 23:05 - Dec 14 with 1739 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 21:44 - Dec 14 by _ |
Lis,
Can you forget the semantics just there for a second and explain to us what happened with Leigh Dineen acquiring his shareholding in the club and why the late Rich Lilicrap and current Trust board members were so dead against it? |
Chris, I have no idea what happened. I assume that Leigh was offered the chance to invest privately (or requested the chance) and took it up to put in £50k or whatever it was of his own money and the other shareholders were prepared to allow it to happen.
In terms of why Richard was against it, I assume that as a genuinely honourable man who was utterly selfless in his desire to establish and promote the whole notion of supporter ownership and as a tireless leader of the push for the Trust to have as big a say as possible in our club for ever more, he found the notion that someone was prepared to use their position as Trust representative to ultimately further their personal situation to be something that he found disingenuous. I also think that once Leigh became a shareholder in his own right, he (and the other Trust leadership) did not believe that the interests of the Trust would be properly served by Leigh continuing to represent the Trust on the board as it was such an obvious conflict of interest.
Richard believed I think in the 'rightness' of the trust and public fan ownership of the club and I suspect was disappointed that those who he thought had the same view, ultimately did not.
I would think though that Phil and others would know far more about the detail of what happened than I do - this is simply my perception and it may be wrong. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 23:13 - Dec 14 with 1717 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 21:51 - Dec 14 by dobjack2 |
Thanks Lisa.
I haven't read any business case for buying the stadium.
i cannot believe that the club borrowing money to buy the stadium would be a requirement for someone to buy some shares in the club. Unless this is a takeover not simply buying shares |
well I assume that any business case must show (or one would think it did) that the increase in revenues that we think that we will be able to generate as a club if we own the stadium over the portion of that income that we would get anyway as a part of Stadco will outweigh the £20-£25m it will cost us to buy it.
Now I can understand that things like extra seats, naming rights etc will generate a lot of income, the only bit that I don't understand is why we can't negotiate an equitable split of that with the other stadco partners (in the same way as Man City have negotiated a fair split of naming rights between them and Manchester City Council).
As I said, it may be something to do with the way that the Financial Fair Play rules work which makes it much more beneficial for us to be able to recognise the gross income rather than our split of it (even though we then also have to recognise gross costs rather than our share of them). And as for the 'takeover' or whatever - I would imagine that any shares purchased now may well be a first tranche rather than the last we hear of it. I can't for the life of me see why some random Americans would want to own a minority stake in a mid table UK premier league football club. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 23:13 - Dec 14 with 1716 views | _ |
| The future of SCFC on 23:05 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Chris, I have no idea what happened. I assume that Leigh was offered the chance to invest privately (or requested the chance) and took it up to put in £50k or whatever it was of his own money and the other shareholders were prepared to allow it to happen.
In terms of why Richard was against it, I assume that as a genuinely honourable man who was utterly selfless in his desire to establish and promote the whole notion of supporter ownership and as a tireless leader of the push for the Trust to have as big a say as possible in our club for ever more, he found the notion that someone was prepared to use their position as Trust representative to ultimately further their personal situation to be something that he found disingenuous. I also think that once Leigh became a shareholder in his own right, he (and the other Trust leadership) did not believe that the interests of the Trust would be properly served by Leigh continuing to represent the Trust on the board as it was such an obvious conflict of interest.
Richard believed I think in the 'rightness' of the trust and public fan ownership of the club and I suspect was disappointed that those who he thought had the same view, ultimately did not.
I would think though that Phil and others would know far more about the detail of what happened than I do - this is simply my perception and it may be wrong. |
Phil doesnt seem to want to answer and this question has been left unanswered many times.
So what shares dos he buy, Lis? Was Leigh like our American investor is now, on a much lesser level? Did he buy shares off someone or were new shares issued?
At what price did he pay for these shares considering we were doing well in League One at the time?
Did he abuse his position as Trust Director as wouldn't this be the same technically now of Phil S or Huw C buying some shares? | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 23:35 - Dec 14 with 1697 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 23:13 - Dec 14 by _ |
Phil doesnt seem to want to answer and this question has been left unanswered many times.
So what shares dos he buy, Lis? Was Leigh like our American investor is now, on a much lesser level? Did he buy shares off someone or were new shares issued?
At what price did he pay for these shares considering we were doing well in League One at the time?
Did he abuse his position as Trust Director as wouldn't this be the same technically now of Phil S or Huw C buying some shares? |
I thought (although again this may be wrong) that he bought new shares rather than bought them from someone else? Don't know though. I thought he paid what the others all paid (including he trust), which was £1 per share wasn't it? | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 23:45 - Dec 14 with 1678 views | londonlisa2001 |
Bu the way - Shaky - I was just looking at a set of the Swans' own accounts from 2012, and it may interest you that in those accounts (actually in the comparatives so for 2011), it lists a secured debt amongst its creditors being an amount of £1.297m due to OTH Limited (which is Martin Morgan's company) and says the following:
OTH Limited, a company controlled by M Morgan, director of Swansea City Association Football Club Limited, holds a charge over the group's freehold investment property. At the balance sheet date, amounts of £nil (2011 £1,297,500) were due to OTH Limited.
So the Swans themselves had a secured, and fixed charge on a shareholder loan in the past. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 01:04 - Dec 15 with 1622 views | _ |
| The future of SCFC on 23:35 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
I thought (although again this may be wrong) that he bought new shares rather than bought them from someone else? Don't know though. I thought he paid what the others all paid (including he trust), which was £1 per share wasn't it? |
So how come our supporters guy in the boardroom bought at the same price as the shares were valued at some years earlier? Did the Board approach him with this offer, did the club need that £50k for any particular reason at that time? Were they the only shares that were open to buy at that time or did any other Director buy more then also?
Does what happened back then have any bearing on what could happen with future investment ie they can make new shares available at any cost? | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 09:23 - Dec 15 with 1521 views | Shaky |
| The future of SCFC on 23:45 - Dec 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Bu the way - Shaky - I was just looking at a set of the Swans' own accounts from 2012, and it may interest you that in those accounts (actually in the comparatives so for 2011), it lists a secured debt amongst its creditors being an amount of £1.297m due to OTH Limited (which is Martin Morgan's company) and says the following:
OTH Limited, a company controlled by M Morgan, director of Swansea City Association Football Club Limited, holds a charge over the group's freehold investment property. At the balance sheet date, amounts of £nil (2011 £1,297,500) were due to OTH Limited.
So the Swans themselves had a secured, and fixed charge on a shareholder loan in the past. |
Now you are really scraping the barrel.
There was some talk of this a while back in connection with related party transactions. What happened is that the club was caught short and Morgan fronted the purchase of the land for the new training complex.
At the accounting date the club had not paid him back so he obviously still owned the land formally pending completion of the transaction. It is nothing to do with a secured shareholder's loan in any accepted use of the term.
For good measure, I guess it is possible that Tan has somehow provided mortgage financing to Cardiff. But firstly I have not seen any evidence of that in the material you have posted, and secondly had he done so it would be mortgage financing which by definition is secured on the property in every country in the world, rather than a shareholders loan according to customary usage of the term.
What does Wikipedia say?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shareholder loan
Shareholder loan is a debt-like form of financing provided by shareholders. Usually, it is the most junior debt in the company's debt portfolio, and since this loan belongs to shareholders it should be treated as equity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_loan#cite_note-2
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
. . and that is right, regardless of the jurisdiction.
End of discussion. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
