| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 138858 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:37 - Jul 4 with 2067 views | Valerie |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:07 - Jul 4 by Oldjack |
they got just about no say anyway or power, 21% of jack shyte that's what they own right now |
Exactly.
A seat on the table where your voice is worthless is exactly that.
But some will miss their little ego trip that's what is really worrying them.
The Yanks will do exactly what they want once the threat has gone and screw
the club and fans for every penny they can get out of us.
Why else do you think they are here?
We all know there is only one reason and that is MONEY.
They do not care a flying fox about us and all they see is dollar signs. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:39 - Jul 4 with 2067 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:51 - Jul 4 by Nookiejack |
Yes totally agree with you. The Yanks can invest and take us to the next level. If then the club goes into a downward spiral which has a very high probability of occurring in the future, for a club of our size (I think something like 47 clubs have now played in the PL which demonstrates the fluidity of promotion and relegation) then Trust with £21m to £23m is in the position to take control of the club. |
How can we be sure £21m will secure control?
Where will the club be to be valued at £21m the championship? League 1?
How much does a championship club sell for? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:18 - Jul 4 with 2013 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:42 - Jul 4 by vetchonian |
OK lets kill the emotion....we all know that the Trust and the fans have been S**t on from a great height by the so called fans who sold out.
What fight do you want?
If the Trust goes down the legal route and win the outcome is £21 or 23M in the bank and no stake in the club.
The sell outs are not affected.....the new owners would be obliged to buy the shares off the Trust at the same price agreed last year.
The "deal" on offer still gives the Trust a stake in the club and some representation at the top table involved with the running of the club.
As others have said the Yanks are not here for the long haul maybe 3 to 5 years tops then they will be looking to sell on.
Taking the legal fight only provides the Trust with cash and results with no stake in the club anymore. |
What fight do you want?
Easy.
To get the money that's owed to them
To show that they cannot be treated with total contempt
To show they have desire to succeed
To win a battle
We are talking here about huge sums of money. Over £20m.
As for stake in the Club. Does that matter really. The Trust aren't needed by the owners, the are seen as an interference without any active powers in any case. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:37 - Jul 4 with 1984 views | harryhpalmer |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:13 - Jul 4 by vetchonian |
Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere but do the same "drag" conditions apply to the remaining shares of the sellouts?
Also I trust the Yanks as far as I could throw them so a question to those who would know....could the Yanks sell to a new co once the deal is signed for a nominal fee say £5 or 10 M. This new co having the yanks on board?
They then pick up the shares for a lot less than the £21m |
that's a good point.
is the deal they are offering the same as the sellers who still hold shares?
if so, could the judge enforce the same as a remedy, which would mean we would end up getting a very similar result as the offer we have now, but no relationship with the Americans. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:10 - Jul 4 with 1937 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:52 - Jul 4 by monmouth |
I'm going to do Ux's line now...it's only fair.
If we win. |
I should have qualified that (I cant have it both ways).
IF WE WIN - £21m to £23m in the bank gives the Trust the opportunity of control of the club at some point in the future.
Just think of it though control of the club:-
1. Ownership not being passed from Venture Capitalist to Venture Capitalist.
2. Ownership not being passed to people who we don't even know own the club.
3. Any returns made by the club fully invested back into the club - that should at least give us some competitiveness.
Sometimes you have got to take a risk and the odds appear to be in our favour.
This is the opportunity. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:11 - Jul 4 with 1934 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:18 - Jul 4 by swancity |
What fight do you want?
Easy.
To get the money that's owed to them
To show that they cannot be treated with total contempt
To show they have desire to succeed
To win a battle
We are talking here about huge sums of money. Over £20m.
As for stake in the Club. Does that matter really. The Trust aren't needed by the owners, the are seen as an interference without any active powers in any case. |
Is that all its about the money?
The sell outs will not be affected by the court case....I fear the club will.....do you think Jason and Steve will dip into their pockets to pay £21m for something they don't need? The £21m will come out of the club in the form of a loan or debt £21m the club can afford to give away | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:15 - Jul 4 with 1928 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:11 - Jul 4 by vetchonian |
Is that all its about the money?
The sell outs will not be affected by the court case....I fear the club will.....do you think Jason and Steve will dip into their pockets to pay £21m for something they don't need? The £21m will come out of the club in the form of a loan or debt £21m the club can afford to give away |
Its not about the money its about justice.
The Trust should have received the same offer as the selling shareholders end of.
If Jason and Steve only had £68m to invest they should have made an offer proportional to each shareholders holding.
Please don't put this back on the Trust. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:19 - Jul 4 with 1922 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:15 - Jul 4 by Nookiejack |
Its not about the money its about justice.
The Trust should have received the same offer as the selling shareholders end of.
If Jason and Steve only had £68m to invest they should have made an offer proportional to each shareholders holding.
Please don't put this back on the Trust. |
I'm not putting this back on the Trust I was responding to swan city who was going on about the money.
I am not sure your vision of the £21m will ever get us control of the club....
I look at the hope some compromise deal can be sorted.....and not one which is a token deal either | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:27 - Jul 4 with 1908 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:19 - Jul 4 by vetchonian |
I'm not putting this back on the Trust I was responding to swan city who was going on about the money.
I am not sure your vision of the £21m will ever get us control of the club....
I look at the hope some compromise deal can be sorted.....and not one which is a token deal either |
Fair enough
I am sorry to harp on about the drag rights again.
However given they have been conceded - then a new buyer could buy 100% of the club - they make an offer to the Yanks - the Yanks accept it and drag along the Trust.
So that new buyer could then leverage up the club. This is another of Lisa's and Shaky's points as the Trust has conceded this without protections.
So again I don't think that is the deciding factor in which of the options to choose. Whichever option you choose can lead to leverage being foistered on the club. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:31 - Jul 4 with 1900 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:19 - Jul 4 by vetchonian |
I'm not putting this back on the Trust I was responding to swan city who was going on about the money.
I am not sure your vision of the £21m will ever get us control of the club....
I look at the hope some compromise deal can be sorted.....and not one which is a token deal either |
Well read my response properly then. The money is just a part of it.
And in the process it just might bring down Jenkins Dineen Morgan in the process. I can't be.ieve they've almost got away scott free so far with their shenanigans. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 03:57 - Jul 5 with 1808 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:31 - Jul 4 by swancity |
Well read my response properly then. The money is just a part of it.
And in the process it just might bring down Jenkins Dineen Morgan in the process. I can't be.ieve they've almost got away scott free so far with their shenanigans. |
The only way I see of the snide sell out scum b'strds leaving at the mo is if we as fans make it uncomfy for them to be anywhere near the ground on matchdays and they think "fugit" and walk away.
Team America seem hellbent on keeping Capt Beaky in a job and they own around 68% with voting rights on the rest.
Trust is now a very minority shareholder when it comes to votes.
Improved offer minus drag rights is probably the best we can hope for whatever way we vote.
And doesn't it stink that those w**kers that have screwed the Trust and ultimately us over, get away with it.
We need to ensure ALL our fans attending know about what's gone on next season, so they may understand why the atmosphere is so hostile, maybe joining in.
If it affects the players and we're heading towards the drop again, Team Merrycans will improve the offer.
Their money men will demand it's sorted |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:52 - Jul 5 with 1711 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:31 - Jul 4 by swancity |
Well read my response properly then. The money is just a part of it.
And in the process it just might bring down Jenkins Dineen Morgan in the process. I can't be.ieve they've almost got away scott free so far with their shenanigans. |
How many imes?
The lrgal action will not affect Jenkins, Morgan or Dineen.
I like you am so Peed off with these so called "fans" who sold my club out after spouting all the claptrap of this club will never be in a Petty situation again...but this potential litagation will do nothing to affect them but it could affect the stability of the club and put it into debt.
Unfortuneately the Yanks see Jenkins as their man....and why shouldnt they from the outside he has "done a fine job" in steering the club from where we were from the Petty saga and then almost falling out of the league to becoming a PL club. Whilst we fans have lost confidence and trust due to his actions over the sale and some of his "footaball decisions" our new owners beleive he is the man they need......whihc often happens in a business take over.
Yes those 3 deserve some retribution but the court action will not achieve that.
All of our emotions are still running high over the part played by these in the sell out but we must be careful to put the emotion to one side to consider what is the best action to take in the best interests of the club! | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:57 - Jul 5 with 1705 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:27 - Jul 4 by Nookiejack |
Fair enough
I am sorry to harp on about the drag rights again.
However given they have been conceded - then a new buyer could buy 100% of the club - they make an offer to the Yanks - the Yanks accept it and drag along the Trust.
So that new buyer could then leverage up the club. This is another of Lisa's and Shaky's points as the Trust has conceded this without protections.
So again I don't think that is the deciding factor in which of the options to choose. Whichever option you choose can lead to leverage being foistered on the club. |
I agree regarding the drag rights whihc is why I have also asked do these app;y to the remaining shares held by the sell outs?
IF not is there a means for the trust to negotiate again using the threat of litagation
I do understand that the ceal on offer doesnt secure the Trust's stake again I asked what stops a sale to a "newco" for a nominal fee immediatly the deal is signed whihc could allow the Yanks to only pay £5M for the shares? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:10 - Jul 5 with 1682 views | SwansNZ |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:30 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
Should be published in the coming days. Given the need to draw up all the documents, get them to the distributors etc, you're probably looking at 3 weeks time, with a 2 week voting window. Aim to have it finalised by early August. |
The mail from UK to NZ and back would probably take longer than 2 weeks. If I contacted the Trust, would I be able to get the ballot form emailed to me, and email it back? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:14 - Jul 5 with 1677 views | SwansNZ |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:10 - Jul 5 by SwansNZ |
The mail from UK to NZ and back would probably take longer than 2 weeks. If I contacted the Trust, would I be able to get the ballot form emailed to me, and email it back? |
I've skimmed through a lot of the thread, trying to catch up, but...
If the vote is for legal action and we take court action and win, why do we have to sell all 21.1% of the shareholding? If the sale would be on the same terms as the sellouts had, they had (and took) the option to retain a part if their holding. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:20 - Jul 5 with 1669 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 07:57 - Jul 5 by vetchonian |
I agree regarding the drag rights whihc is why I have also asked do these app;y to the remaining shares held by the sell outs?
IF not is there a means for the trust to negotiate again using the threat of litagation
I do understand that the ceal on offer doesnt secure the Trust's stake again I asked what stops a sale to a "newco" for a nominal fee immediatly the deal is signed whihc could allow the Yanks to only pay £5M for the shares? |
The Trust is awaiting last year's SPA, so can't be 100% sure on whether drag rights relate to the remaining minority shareholders. However we believe it's the case.
The last paragraph will need ensuring as part of the subsequent contractual process if the deal is ratified. The vote can only ever be "subject to contract" as that process would take some time, so if something that had such a fundamental impact on being able to uphold that deal occurred, then the deal couldn't progress. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:21 - Jul 5 with 1661 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:10 - Jul 5 by SwansNZ |
The mail from UK to NZ and back would probably take longer than 2 weeks. If I contacted the Trust, would I be able to get the ballot form emailed to me, and email it back? |
Yes there are special considerations for overseas members. I would contact the Trust via the website contact form and someone will get back to you asap. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:30 - Jul 5 with 1642 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:14 - Jul 5 by SwansNZ |
I've skimmed through a lot of the thread, trying to catch up, but...
If the vote is for legal action and we take court action and win, why do we have to sell all 21.1% of the shareholding? If the sale would be on the same terms as the sellouts had, they had (and took) the option to retain a part if their holding. |
This is where things get complicated.
Basically it's all at the judge's discretion. The guidance the Trust has had is that the most likely result of a successful legal action (note successful there - Thanks Monny  ) is a full sale.
However, other decisions are possible. The judge could indeed compel only a part sale, such as 1/2 or 3/4 of the shareholding. He may do something entirely different, although we do think that's unlikely.
Legal action is unpredictable. No doubt I'll be accused of overstating the risks here, but frankly I'd say those saying it's an absolute certainty that a) we'd win and b) the full sale would arise are the ones playing fast and loose with the facts. Everyone feels this is a strong case, and its certainly one that has every chance of success, but the Trust board would be negligent if it didn't point out the risks. [Post edited 5 Jul 2017 8:34]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:37 - Jul 5 with 1619 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:24 - Jul 4 by Uxbridge |
I've said that very same thing countless times.
Nookie was saying that Trust have no say in any future sale. I was pointing out that the tag along rights mean that is incorrect. |
As we have discussed Uxbridge
The tag rights have value if we stay in the PL probably until the next TV rights are negotiated as the Yanks will be working to a 3-5 year plan.
It will depend on TV rights staying at same value or increasing to drive the value in the Yanks shares up for them to deliver their target return.
I have assesssed the risk of relegation at 83% chance by the 5th year. This is an objective assessment based on current bookies odds who do this day in, day our for a living.
You have assessed it at 50%. I note from one of your previous posts that your work involves statistics however you haven't provided objective reference point for your 50% assessment.
In my view assessment of our chances of staying up for 3-5 years is one of the key determinants in members decisions - as that is when the 'tag' rights should have value - subject to them be drafted watertight. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:38 - Jul 5 with 1618 views | vetchonian |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:20 - Jul 5 by Uxbridge |
The Trust is awaiting last year's SPA, so can't be 100% sure on whether drag rights relate to the remaining minority shareholders. However we believe it's the case.
The last paragraph will need ensuring as part of the subsequent contractual process if the deal is ratified. The vote can only ever be "subject to contract" as that process would take some time, so if something that had such a fundamental impact on being able to uphold that deal occurred, then the deal couldn't progress. |
Thanks Ux | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:55 - Jul 5 with 1595 views | SwansNZ |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:21 - Jul 5 by Uxbridge |
Yes there are special considerations for overseas members. I would contact the Trust via the website contact form and someone will get back to you asap. |
Done. Thanks | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:56 - Jul 5 with 1595 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:37 - Jul 5 by Nookiejack |
As we have discussed Uxbridge
The tag rights have value if we stay in the PL probably until the next TV rights are negotiated as the Yanks will be working to a 3-5 year plan.
It will depend on TV rights staying at same value or increasing to drive the value in the Yanks shares up for them to deliver their target return.
I have assesssed the risk of relegation at 83% chance by the 5th year. This is an objective assessment based on current bookies odds who do this day in, day our for a living.
You have assessed it at 50%. I note from one of your previous posts that your work involves statistics however you haven't provided objective reference point for your 50% assessment.
In my view assessment of our chances of staying up for 3-5 years is one of the key determinants in members decisions - as that is when the 'tag' rights should have value - subject to them be drafted watertight. |
Based on the betting odds available and our predicament last season when we looked certainly down in December I would estimate that it's closer to 90% that we will be relegated within five years and around 60%+ within three. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:09 - Jul 5 with 1580 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:37 - Jul 5 by Nookiejack |
As we have discussed Uxbridge
The tag rights have value if we stay in the PL probably until the next TV rights are negotiated as the Yanks will be working to a 3-5 year plan.
It will depend on TV rights staying at same value or increasing to drive the value in the Yanks shares up for them to deliver their target return.
I have assesssed the risk of relegation at 83% chance by the 5th year. This is an objective assessment based on current bookies odds who do this day in, day our for a living.
You have assessed it at 50%. I note from one of your previous posts that your work involves statistics however you haven't provided objective reference point for your 50% assessment.
In my view assessment of our chances of staying up for 3-5 years is one of the key determinants in members decisions - as that is when the 'tag' rights should have value - subject to them be drafted watertight. |
I've never said my work involved statistics. I said I've studied it. Bit of a difference.
I do know a bit about it though, and I know that you taking one season's bookies odds and a) using that as an accurate prediction of the odds of safety, and b) extrapolating that over a number of years is as fundamentally flawed as my finger in the air approach was.
If this has been about 20 years ago at the back end of my degree I'd have put together a sophisticated statistical model looking at historic trends, relative balance sheets, squad valuations, geographic locations (laugh if you want, but derby matches are statistically less predictable than others) and a whole host of factors. It'd have been a thing of beauty. And we could all have had a good laugh as that prediction model comprehensively failed to predict anything. That's the thing about statistical models. The recent elections show us that.
My point is that your approach was flawed. Bookies odds will take into account their own models into the likelihood of an event happening, but it will also take into account the market. That's why markets move when people put money on them - bookies are basically hedging to ensure they're covered in all scenarios.
A major flaw in your approach also is you've failed to look at the likelihood of promotion back to the Premier League if we are relegated. Historic average of automatic promotion is 25%, rising to 34% if looking over two years. The doomsday scenario of League 1 or below after 2 years? 3.4%.
This is all lovely theory of course, but it doesn't amount to anything. Everyone's guessing on the likelihood of events occurring. But please, please, don't pretend that there's anything scientific or statistically sound than anyone else's approach, because that's just plain wrong. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:24 - Jul 5 with 1558 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:37 - Jul 5 by Nookiejack |
As we have discussed Uxbridge
The tag rights have value if we stay in the PL probably until the next TV rights are negotiated as the Yanks will be working to a 3-5 year plan.
It will depend on TV rights staying at same value or increasing to drive the value in the Yanks shares up for them to deliver their target return.
I have assesssed the risk of relegation at 83% chance by the 5th year. This is an objective assessment based on current bookies odds who do this day in, day our for a living.
You have assessed it at 50%. I note from one of your previous posts that your work involves statistics however you haven't provided objective reference point for your 50% assessment.
In my view assessment of our chances of staying up for 3-5 years is one of the key determinants in members decisions - as that is when the 'tag' rights should have value - subject to them be drafted watertight. |
Uxbridge,
The other determinant of whether the 'tag' rights have value - which hasn't really been discussed in depth on this thread is the likelihood of current TV rights being maintained or increasing.
SKY have recently announced that they are going to set up dedicated sports channels. From my understanding one will be for the PL and one for the Championship.
So instead of SKY subscribers having to take the full package across number of channels - they could just choose PL channel at much cheaper cost.
Some commentators think SKY have taken this decision due to increased streaming / use of Kodi etc.
It therefore may be indicative that SKY PL football revenues have peaked. Of course setting up dedictared Sports channels may increase the PL revenues.
What other commentators have also mentioned is that this could then further lead to the dedicated sports channels then being further split into channels for individual clubs. Or press the 'red' button and you can just watch Man Utd games for example. Hence the big clubs could then take away the majority of the TV revenues. It could lead to the break up of the PL collective agreement. The
So even if we stay in PL you can't be sure that TV revenues will stay the same or keep increasing.
This is a big risk to the value of the Trust's shares given the club's revenues are so skewed to TV revenues (please don't argue that stadium naming rights will compensate for this).
Of course TV can keep exponentially increasing, we stay in PL and the value of the 'Tag' rights kick in. It all depends on your assessment of risk.
You are more bullish - I am more conservative as think the current value should be banked as that will guarantee long term security for the club - if we win the court case. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:30 - Jul 5 with 1543 views | QJumpingJack |
Do we think we will hit 50 pages for this thread? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
