| The future of SCFC 09:32 - Nov 11 with 42917 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 20:35 - Dec 15 with 2129 views | Chiswickjack4 |
Mark Crutches is surely the best / biggest fan with his amazing commitment since the early 70s?
Missing two games in 40+ years? |  | | |
| The future of SCFC on 20:42 - Dec 15 with 2108 views | _ |
| The future of SCFC on 20:00 - Dec 15 by Witneyjack |
I think he was picking up T2C for his criticism of Scouse not attending all games rather than having a go at you. That's how I read it anyway...... |
Wow again, for you to defend someone who uses this site constantly all day every day and mostly with no opinion but only to stoke up fires, wind people up and shit stir says a lot about you.
You may accuse me of all those things but at least I don't even know I'm doing it, there's certainly no outward intention to, it's just I voice my opinions in a manner it seems that irritates people. I don't troll the message board like Darran does and he gets many complaints for doing so by some of the most respected posters on here....but not you it seems.
When thieves fall out, however... | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 20:46 - Dec 15 with 2093 views | Darran |
| The future of SCFC on 19:52 - Dec 15 by MoscowJack |
Tut tut Darran! If you live abroad but never, ever miss a game on the box (even if kick off is at midnight or 3am) does that make you less of a fan than someone who goes to the Liberty once a season more than you but never watches a game for the rest of the season.
Don't be so fking pathetic and petty.
Or, I could simply do what you do which is give up working, suck money off the government, sit on here all day and offer the players hand jobs from your prime (discounted) seat in the Liberty! All of the above is, of course, only possible if you can ever drag yourself away from commenting on EVERY single thread on here, even if it adds absolutely ZERO to any of them.
FYI - regardless of where people live or how many games they see, a REAL Swans fan knows or some sometimes shows his own level of passion. If could be in tattoos, screensavers at works, buying season tickets when he/she can't really afford it, collecting memorabilia, watching the reserves/youth etc, hanging around for hours waiting for photos with the players, naming their kids/cats/dogs after their favourite player etc. Some are plastics, some are hard core (and then there's Shaky) but for you to even pretend to know how much love and passion I have for the Swans shows what a useless contributor to this thread and forum you are at times. As much as I think you're a waste of time and space, I do recognise that you love the Swans passionately so please AT LEAST respect that others do too.....even if we can't all drive a few miles to the stadium every home game!
See you at the Villa game! [Post edited 15 Dec 2014 20:09]
|
I wasn't having a go at you Nick I was sticking up for you,no need to apologise. |  |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 20:49 - Dec 15 with 2088 views | MoscowJack |
| The future of SCFC on 20:35 - Dec 15 by Chiswickjack4 |
Mark Crutches is surely the best / biggest fan with his amazing commitment since the early 70s?
Missing two games in 40+ years? |
Great effort, but maybe many others would too if they didn't have to work and got paid money from the government to follow the Swans.
Following the Swans is the same, for some, as simply drinking 10 pints a day in the pub. It's an addiction. If he'd not worked for 20+ years and spent all his time in a pub, would he be so "famous" as he is? He's got to have credit to his amazing effort of only missing two games, but it's not so hard to do without a job to keep hold of, is it? | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 20:53 - Dec 15 with 2078 views | MoscowJack |
| The future of SCFC on 20:46 - Dec 15 by Darran |
I wasn't having a go at you Nick I was sticking up for you,no need to apologise. |
Didn't seem that way to me. I do apologise if I'm wrong but it still doesn't read that way to me. | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 21:00 - Dec 15 with 2054 views | Darran |
| The future of SCFC on 20:53 - Dec 15 by MoscowJack |
Didn't seem that way to me. I do apologise if I'm wrong but it still doesn't read that way to me. |
You are wrong. | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 21:03 - Dec 15 with 2044 views | Witneyjack |
| The future of SCFC on 20:42 - Dec 15 by _ |
Wow again, for you to defend someone who uses this site constantly all day every day and mostly with no opinion but only to stoke up fires, wind people up and shit stir says a lot about you.
You may accuse me of all those things but at least I don't even know I'm doing it, there's certainly no outward intention to, it's just I voice my opinions in a manner it seems that irritates people. I don't troll the message board like Darran does and he gets many complaints for doing so by some of the most respected posters on here....but not you it seems.
When thieves fall out, however... |
Oh dear.... I read the post and realised Moscowjack had misunderstood what Darran had written. I pointed that out and your post shortly followed.
Astonishing!! I made no comment but you jump all over me. I think you need to read up on the term 'persecution complex'. You accused me of not liking you on here the other day but couldn't respond to me when I asked you to prove so.
It was based on me debating a point with you, which you clearly found too difficult.
I don't know you, and therefore can't really form an opinion. I have met Darran and he is a very nice man, although that had nothing to do with my post above.
Perhaps your view of me has developed since you found out my profession, you certainly changed in the manner of your posts after?
Keep it up, you won't get to me if that is your aim.
As they say " not a f##k is given". |  | | |
| The future of SCFC on 21:34 - Dec 15 with 1972 views | ScoobyWho |
| The future of SCFC on 20:49 - Dec 15 by MoscowJack |
Great effort, but maybe many others would too if they didn't have to work and got paid money from the government to follow the Swans.
Following the Swans is the same, for some, as simply drinking 10 pints a day in the pub. It's an addiction. If he'd not worked for 20+ years and spent all his time in a pub, would he be so "famous" as he is? He's got to have credit to his amazing effort of only missing two games, but it's not so hard to do without a job to keep hold of, is it? |
Perfect. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The future of SCFC on 22:56 - Dec 15 with 1899 views | dobjack2 |
| The future of SCFC on 20:49 - Dec 15 by MoscowJack |
Great effort, but maybe many others would too if they didn't have to work and got paid money from the government to follow the Swans.
Following the Swans is the same, for some, as simply drinking 10 pints a day in the pub. It's an addiction. If he'd not worked for 20+ years and spent all his time in a pub, would he be so "famous" as he is? He's got to have credit to his amazing effort of only missing two games, but it's not so hard to do without a job to keep hold of, is it? |
I think that he would rather be working than being on crutches for the rest of his life as a result of an accident at work. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 23:27 - Dec 15 with 1866 views | perchrockjack |
Exactly, but tell that to the peals on here.
" deserting" was a word used to describe those like you Witney, all the seals, Bill and James in Carlisle, and those on the southern hemisphere.
We don't go to most games ergo we aren't worthy..
Thankfully, these people are a tiny insignificant minority.
Mark crutches wouldn't be seen dead on here and that is one guy who really has done the miles . | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 10:17 - Dec 16 with 1784 views | Shaky |
So I am afraid there is a little unfinished business in this thread, given the imperative of not allowing ourselves to be hoodwinked by dangerous nonsense reported to us not once, not twice, but 8 times by Lisa yesterday in the space of 2 hours:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@13:16 - But for you to understand, debt isn't redeemable preference shares. Redeemable preference shares aren't debt. They are two completely different things.
@13:19 - Cardiff have spent the past two years talking about Tan doing a debt to equity conversion - don't know why they are bothering - wikipedia (and Shaky) say that it's the same thing
@13:37 - Shaky - it's more important that people understand that this will be debt than you trying to defend your indefensible statement. And wikipedia doesn't count as 'people who know what they're talking about'.
@13:41 - It's a shame he didn't have wikipedia to fall back on - he could have saved himself the money by simply announcing that the debt wasn't really debt, it was 'quasi equity'.
@13:55 - But genuinely, it is really important that false information doesn't get people thinking 'ah well, it's not really debt'. That will be a vey dangerous place for the supporters to be.
@13:59 - it says (incorrectly) it should be treated as equity
@14:55 - It WILL be debt and I am annoyed at the suggestion (incorrectly) that it will not be from someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. Such a suggestion is dangerous as it will lead to supporters thinking 'ah well, it doesn't really matter'.
@15:18 - the last thing anyone wants is for some sort of spin being put on to any debt that the US investors may or may not inject. And the line that is being adopted by Shaky of it 'not really being debt' is simply wrong here
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Lisa, in light of these uncompromisingly strident statements can you confirm that not only am I wrong along with Wikipedia, but that the author or Corporate Financial Strategy is also wrong when he says "ordinary shareholders would probably regard the preference shares as another form of subordinated debt"
Is he also wrong when he earlier says "range of products includes redeemable equity (preference shares). . .irredeemable debt. . . subordinated. . .with equity kicker; whether these are debt or equity is debatable".
Of course the dismal reality Lisa is there is no point in asking you, because you don't have a f*cking clue.
Instead the dangerously confused reader might like to hear the author's bio from the book jacket: "Keith Ward is a senior lecturer in Finance and Accounting at the Cranfield School of Management. He is the author of Financial Aspects of Marketing (1989), Management Accounting For Financial Decisions (1991), Strategic Management Accounting (1992). |  |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 10:24 - Dec 16 with 1772 views | Shaky |
Another little gem of a quote I just noticed , Lisa:
"Companies and their advisors appear to believe that by specifically targeting particular groups of investors and giving them exactly the type of investment they are looking for they can add value by achieving a better mix of risk and return."
Think about that for a while, Lisa. Then shut the f*ck up. | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 10:25 - Dec 16 with 1769 views | perchrockjack |
...Witney.. Without question youre correct in your assumption.
It may also be the case you ve trod on his toes, so to speak.
This is HIS forum and he calls the shots, hence some of the fawning .
"thieves" is yet another .
"respected posters" are those with with CHRISSY agrees with , God help them.
Anyway, hope to catch up with you one day Witney and watch your back..always. | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 10:31 - Dec 16 with 1766 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| The future of SCFC on 20:46 - Dec 15 by Darran |
I wasn't having a go at you Nick I was sticking up for you,no need to apologise. |
Making friends again I see Darran. By the way, when did you first watch a Swans game? |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 10:45 - Dec 16 with 1739 views | perchrockjack |
Me al fella took me in 1957 to Molinieux,as we were "posh" and had a car. We lost 5-3 but I was smitten and it was ,with all the SWANSEA men/players OUR team OUR town being represented.
We always seemed to be struggling even with all that talent and Im pretty certain the way our club was run was awful. After the great cup run of 1963/4 we flogged off the jewels and it took us years to recover then it went tits up again before Tosh came in ,then went tits up again- because of bad management, then came good again, then tits up again because of - you guessed it- bad management (board level).
This is why I do not share the views of those suggesting we are in some cricis or that there is doom and destruction ahead.
Our previous directions and chairmen haven't been exactly brilliant.
THE CURRENT LOT aren't but by fook, they are the best we have and if they walk away- because of the poison posted on here- we re fecked ,well and truly .THAT is what we should be concerned about . There is no reason for all this crap and just as well its only a minority | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 11:45 - Dec 16 with 1698 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 10:17 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
So I am afraid there is a little unfinished business in this thread, given the imperative of not allowing ourselves to be hoodwinked by dangerous nonsense reported to us not once, not twice, but 8 times by Lisa yesterday in the space of 2 hours:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@13:16 - But for you to understand, debt isn't redeemable preference shares. Redeemable preference shares aren't debt. They are two completely different things.
@13:19 - Cardiff have spent the past two years talking about Tan doing a debt to equity conversion - don't know why they are bothering - wikipedia (and Shaky) say that it's the same thing
@13:37 - Shaky - it's more important that people understand that this will be debt than you trying to defend your indefensible statement. And wikipedia doesn't count as 'people who know what they're talking about'.
@13:41 - It's a shame he didn't have wikipedia to fall back on - he could have saved himself the money by simply announcing that the debt wasn't really debt, it was 'quasi equity'.
@13:55 - But genuinely, it is really important that false information doesn't get people thinking 'ah well, it's not really debt'. That will be a vey dangerous place for the supporters to be.
@13:59 - it says (incorrectly) it should be treated as equity
@14:55 - It WILL be debt and I am annoyed at the suggestion (incorrectly) that it will not be from someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. Such a suggestion is dangerous as it will lead to supporters thinking 'ah well, it doesn't really matter'.
@15:18 - the last thing anyone wants is for some sort of spin being put on to any debt that the US investors may or may not inject. And the line that is being adopted by Shaky of it 'not really being debt' is simply wrong here
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Lisa, in light of these uncompromisingly strident statements can you confirm that not only am I wrong along with Wikipedia, but that the author or Corporate Financial Strategy is also wrong when he says "ordinary shareholders would probably regard the preference shares as another form of subordinated debt"
Is he also wrong when he earlier says "range of products includes redeemable equity (preference shares). . .irredeemable debt. . . subordinated. . .with equity kicker; whether these are debt or equity is debatable".
Of course the dismal reality Lisa is there is no point in asking you, because you don't have a f*cking clue.
Instead the dangerously confused reader might like to hear the author's bio from the book jacket: "Keith Ward is a senior lecturer in Finance and Accounting at the Cranfield School of Management. He is the author of Financial Aspects of Marketing (1989), Management Accounting For Financial Decisions (1991), Strategic Management Accounting (1992). |
The problem with you Shaky is that you understand only a tiny fraction of what's been said and fail to understand the importance of context. This leads you now I see to take a whole host of unrelated posts and pretend that they are all about the same thing.
To sum up (since I have a few minutes spare to try to educate you a little) you started by saying that debt provided by shareholders is ALWAYS subordinated. That's been proved to be incorrect. You are now off on a tangent about preference shares which has no relevance to the discussion which, in case you have forgotten is about what happens if the US investors provide debt to the club and the difference between that debt and debt that could otherwise be provided by a bank.
Preference shares have no relevance to that.
However, since that's yet another area that you don't seem to understand, you have chosen to quote a paragraph which was specifically about the calculation of debt / equity ratios from the perspective of different investor groups.
You have, also, of course, quoted selectively and ignored the bit where the author has said that from the perspective of the debt holder, preference shares are equity.
But from whatever perspective ratios are calculated, they are not relevant for this discussion since we are not discussing Swansea City's ratio analysis are we.
We're talking about risk - actual risk to the club if an investor (or a bank) puts money in and what happens if the club gets into a position of not being able to pay that money back.
Now the author is correct in saying that preference shares may share some characteristics of debt (from the perspective of ordinary shareholders who, of course rank below preference shareholders in a winding up). But equally, preference shares may share no characteristics of debt. It depends on things such as whether they have a fixed coupon (which would be similar to interest if so) and, crucially whether they are dated (or redeemable). Not all preference shares are redeemable. They may be convertible as well (in other words may become ordinary shares at some point in the future) and they may not.
All of these aspects of the specific shares will make them more or less similar to debt for stuff like ratios etc.
But there is one overwhelming reason why preference shares are different to debt, even if they share enough characteristics to be lumped in with debt if an ordinary shareholder is assessing risk via ratio analysis. And that is what happens if the company can't pay what is due on them.
And that Shaky - is the bit which we, in this discussion are interested in isn't it. What happens to our club (I use 'our' very loosely since your link to the club tenuous at best) if we get relegated and have no money.
And if a company fails to pay its preference shares, the preference shareholder cannot do anything about it.
A preference dividend must be paid before a dividend to ordinary shareholders, but is not a legal commitment and non payment (unlike debt interest) cannot result in the preference shareholder forcing the company under. In some cases the unpaid coupon rolls up (called a cumulative preference share) and in some cases it doesn't. In either case, the preference shareholder can't do anything substantial about it.
Neither is a preference share issued with security over a company's assets, so there is no claim that can be made, for example, over a stadium or similar.
And, therefore, in the context of this conversation, preference shares are not debt.
Now that little tangent is out of the way, perhaps we can carry on with the rather more important discussion about company risk.
But I do hope that helps. And you say I'm the one without a clue ... lol | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 11:52 - Dec 16 with 1692 views | Shaky |
Too long Lisa, not interested.
I am guessing the bottom line is the Cranfield professor is also wrong, correct? | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 12:00 - Dec 16 with 1683 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 11:52 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Too long Lisa, not interested.
I am guessing the bottom line is the Cranfield professor is also wrong, correct? |
You're not interested because it was a comprehensive dismantling of your bullshit.
Quelle surprise.
Tell me - do you actually have any experience whatsoever or are you just a complete troll? It's really difficult to tell at times since you keep saying you have experience and yet virtually everything you ever say shows this to be untrue. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 12:05 - Dec 16 with 1671 views | Shaky |
| The future of SCFC on 12:00 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
You're not interested because it was a comprehensive dismantling of your bullshit.
Quelle surprise.
Tell me - do you actually have any experience whatsoever or are you just a complete troll? It's really difficult to tell at times since you keep saying you have experience and yet virtually everything you ever say shows this to be untrue. |
Yup, everything me, Wikepedia, and professors of Finance at Cranfield say is wrong.
Wrong, wrong, , wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
At this time of giving why not treat yourself to visit to a good psychiatrist, love. | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 12:12 - Dec 16 with 1665 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 12:05 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Yup, everything me, Wikepedia, and professors of Finance at Cranfield say is wrong.
Wrong, wrong, , wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
At this time of giving why not treat yourself to visit to a good psychiatrist, love. |
I didn't say the guys at Cranfield were wrong - I just pointed out that the quotes about ratio analysis you provided were irrelevant to the discussion (which you would realise if you even remotely understood anything at all about what is being discussed).
It's you that need a trip to see someone Shaky since you are obviously quite utterly deluded. | | | |
| The future of SCFC on 12:17 - Dec 16 with 1657 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The future of SCFC on 12:05 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Yup, everything me, Wikepedia, and professors of Finance at Cranfield say is wrong.
Wrong, wrong, , wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
At this time of giving why not treat yourself to visit to a good psychiatrist, love. |
By the way - is there any chance whatsoever you could just p*** off and let people that know what they're talking about have a conversation without your little 'Penguin book of finance' standard comments? | | | |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 21:06 - Oct 25 with 978 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 21:35 - Dec 10 by Phil_S |
A personal feeling of which of course you have no evidence to back up
And yet people have told you that isn't the case and people who are likely to know
From here we will let the good folks of Planet Swans decide who they want to believe |
Is this the evidence this board has been waiting for, Phil?
Have the good people of Planet Swans finally seen through you? |  |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 21:11 - Oct 25 with 946 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 07:56 - Dec 11 by swansinfo |
How Cooze and Jim White both heavily involved in personal business interests linked to SCFC and serving (badly) the fans at large.
< I do hope you have some proof to back up your statement here Chris? How am I serving fans badly??
Why try and black mark my name in a public forum like this? If you think I am being dishonest and dodgy then message me, email me or phone me? I have nothing to hide.
Just for complete transparency here is what my company has earned and spent with the club in the last 2 years before this season started. We no longer work with the club as they moved to a new communications system with Ticketmaster in the summer. The club used to pay a small amount per month (£100 a month and heavily discounted from what it should have been to my company) in return to be able to use our system. So I would say I earned around £2400 in the last 2 years. I spent around £25,000 on a Morfa Lounge table (£12,500 each year) but decided not to continue with this for this season as I am spending my Corporate Hospitality budget elsewhere. I didnt add in here the 2 season tickets which i pay for via the Club's Business club (£500 each I think) and so there is another £2000 I have paid.
So spend of around £27,000 and income of around £2500. I am sure you can work out my net contribution to the club from that? I hope that helps clear that point up for you???
By the way, it is up to Huw Cooze to defend himself but I will tell you he does not have a fat salary paid by the club but I would guess that out of that £150k a MASSIVE proportion goes on printing costs which he handles and then passes back to the club. He has to record it in the interests but to think he himself benefits from that amount is incorrect.
On the tweeting aspect then here is the comment i made on my guestbook
"We did specifically ask people not to tweet and report on the forum live but there isn't a problem if someone does want to post something here"
The word WE here was a collective We of the organisers and not just me. I didn't do any introductions where this was mentioned but I was part of the organising group who agreed that this was the right approach to take. We said it was fine to report afterwards and others have but we just didn't want a series of live tweets as that would have actually had the effect of making those answering questions clam up and we purposely DIDN'T want that!! We wanted, openness, transparency and honesty and this is what we got!
I do what I do for the Trust because I care about the long term of our football club (as do other Trust Board Members). I became a Swans fan at 6 when my Dad and Uncle took me and although I have lived most of my life away from Swansea, my club has never left me. I care about seeing the club grow and prosper (but not at all costs) and I want to see the club develop and expand so that more kids can get into the stadium and watch their heroes. Getting 000's of kids to become Jacks is what will help us grow in the long term.
With the above in mind, I won't be looking to stand down as we have a lot of work to do to protect the club. If my other TBM's felt I should then I would consider it but I think they see what I do to help (at my own cost) as I see what they do (at their own cost) and we all work together to try and look after the best interests of fans in general.
I find it a real shame that you choose to think as you do but if that's what you believe then that's up to you. All I would ask you to do is kindly not make incorrect accusations about me or my motives in public forums like this.
Jim |
Is Jim White lying here? | |
| |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 21:14 - Oct 25 with 930 views | TheResurrection |
| The Sham Trust Forum - London on 18:20 - Dec 10 by _ |
Well at least there has finally been some more discussion on this matter.
I guess we will all find out what is really going on sooner or later and all these discussions will come back into play again at that point.
My personal feeling at this very moment in time is that the main players at the club have got all the necessary protection in place from the Trust Board Directors and the supporters of the club itself should be very aware and careful about this.
Something isn't right but there's clearly very little that can be done about it. |
Hmm....
Sooner or later.... | |
| |
| The future of SCFC on 22:13 - Oct 25 with 832 views | Daggyjack |
| The future of SCFC on 12:05 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Yup, everything me, Wikepedia, and professors of Finance at Cranfield say is wrong.
Wrong, wrong, , wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
At this time of giving why not treat yourself to visit to a good psychiatrist, love. |
Fair play Shaky, you are a condescending idiot. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
