| Trust statement 20:05 - Jun 13 with 37816 views | Joe_bradshaw |
The court case is happening at last.
Thanks Joe, a little bit from me to everyone.
Hi folks, this is clearly a topic many enjoy commenting on, but please remain consistent in your responses avoiding potential slurs on any characters involved and remain objective.
Thanks ðŸ‘
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust statement on 14:00 - Jun 20 with 1936 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust statement on 08:18 - Jun 19 by pikeypaul |
100%
I wonder how Uxbridge is feeling now, and the people he was desperately trying to protect for whatever reason are losing a bit of sleep. |
Not necessarily, Pike. If anything a broken promise would strengthen the Trust case if it does get to court. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 14:06 - Jun 20 with 1909 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 13:40 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Absolutely I did. He said there were very strict restictions on investment for the SCST and the SCST would have plans to avoid the crippling effects of inflation. What are these plans?
For my point of you making money is pointless if it cannot be invested for the benefit of society or the club. We know the SCST will make their London associates very rich after a court win. What benefits come to Swansea?
It is a reasonable question to ask is it not? [Post edited 20 Jun 2021 14:00]
|
I notice this post has been edited at 2 pm. To get rid of your stupidity around turning the Trust into a limited company.
I repeat. What is your proof for you ‘knowing’ that the Trust will make ‘London associates’ very rich.
Who are these associates and how are they going to be made very rich?
I’ve screenshotted your post btw so don’t bother pretending you didn’t say it. You need to actively admit you are making up baseless allegations of wrongdoing. And apologise.
Enough is enough, |  | | |
| Trust statement on 14:13 - Jun 20 with 1873 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 22:18 - Jun 19 by Whiterockin |
Many who move away are still ardent supporters and valued by the club and supporters alike. They make an incredible effort to support the club home and away, then again there are are others who claim to be supporters who only criticize, they need to step back and think. Am I a true supporter or just a parasite. |
I think there are more significant thing in life to analyse.
I'll tell you what though.
Before I go to bed tonight ,I will ask why I still bother my 'rse with people who follow the club I do. I'll ask if the last 60 + years have been worth it and the pain,joy and ups and down worth it.
While I am at it,I will check out one of my dictionaries to check the definition of parasite then that will take me back to my 3rd paragraph.
Finally, suppose reflection is due on whether or not getting so malovolent in thought about other fans is something I recall from earlier years. Im guessing not. It's down to t'internet innit. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 14:16 - Jun 20 with 1882 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 13:50 - Jun 20 by londonlisa2001 |
What London associates are going to be made very rich?
Give us provable details of such associates and how they are going to be made rich or withdraw the allegation. Since you ‘know’ it’s going to happen, it shouldn’t take you long.
You’ve made such accusations repeatedly and it is defamatory as it implies wrongdoing. |
No accusationcs intended and no demformation intented. The action being taken is entirely legal and not 'wrong doing'.
It will come at what the recent SCST statement call "a cost" which implies profit for the firms involved. I cannot prove they will become 'very rich' so I withdraw that comment. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 14:23 - Jun 20 with 1875 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 14:06 - Jun 20 by londonlisa2001 |
I notice this post has been edited at 2 pm. To get rid of your stupidity around turning the Trust into a limited company.
I repeat. What is your proof for you ‘knowing’ that the Trust will make ‘London associates’ very rich.
Who are these associates and how are they going to be made very rich?
I’ve screenshotted your post btw so don’t bother pretending you didn’t say it. You need to actively admit you are making up baseless allegations of wrongdoing. And apologise.
Enough is enough, |
I read somewhere that the Trust could be converted into another form of instittuion from the model rules. There is nothing wrong with this as clearly the SCST would need to be bought out, with the moneys used in approved ways such as local charities.
Later I could not find that clause later so deleted it. I am very interested at how the SCST can invest. I will try and find where i read it again. [Post edited 20 Jun 2021 14:52]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 14:27 - Jun 20 with 1869 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 14:23 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I read somewhere that the Trust could be converted into another form of instittuion from the model rules. There is nothing wrong with this as clearly the SCST would need to be bought out, with the moneys used in approved ways such as local charities.
Later I could not find that clause later so deleted it. I am very interested at how the SCST can invest. I will try and find where i read it again. [Post edited 20 Jun 2021 14:52]
|
Here it is
CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION
96. The Act provides that the Society may by special resolution as defined in the Act:
96.1. amalgamate with another society or a company registered under the Companies
Acts;
96.2. transfer its engagements to another society or a company registered under the
Companies Acts;
96.3. convert itself into a company registered under the Companies Acts
See note 96.3. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 14:54 - Jun 20 with 1841 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 14:16 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
No accusationcs intended and no demformation intented. The action being taken is entirely legal and not 'wrong doing'.
It will come at what the recent SCST statement call "a cost" which implies profit for the firms involved. I cannot prove they will become 'very rich' so I withdraw that comment. |
No. Not good enough.
You have repeatedly talked of ‘London associates’ and how this is benefiting them. You’ve spoken of drinks in clubs with QCs. ‘Drinking sherry with the QC in a London gentlemens club somewhere perhaps. Nothing changes perhaps they bumped into a few Socialist grandees on the way to the House of Lords. ‘
That’s what you said. And the constant reference to ‘associates’, changeable as being n London or Surrey as the mood takes you.
The implication is of people known / close to the Trust. Professional firms employed in their proper capacity on arms length commercial terms are not ‘associates getting rich in London’. As you know damn well, I am based in London and when you use such language there is an insinuation that people like me are in some way doing well out of all this. That’s why you are doing it.
If you are talking about professionals who may be quite properly employed on an arms length basis for their expertise, then stop pretending that it’s all some cosy non professional relationship. I’m sure you realise everyone involved will have employed professional advisors. You don’t refer to them
Taking money away from Swansea do you.
You know damn well you are doing it repeatedly.
I foe one have had enough of the innuendo and smears. You need to withdraw your baseless defamatory comments for once and for all.
Do you have any knowledge of anything whatsoever being done by the Trust that is in anyway not part of a usual professional relationship between an organisation and those it hires to provide expertise?
Do you have any knowledge of any part of the Trust’s relationship with its legal advisors, whether its firm of solicitors or barrister that has any implication of untoward behaviour?
Do you have any knowledge that anyone involved with the Trust is in anyway behaving improperly and is receiving any recompense for their hundreds of hours spent attempting to resolve the situation as it stands, whether financial or ‘drinking sherry on their way to the House of Lords’?
Do you have any knowledge of the Trust not behaving properly in its appointment of advisors or in the commercial arrangements it has with them?
If the answer to those questions is ‘no’ then we had better never see allegations again of such improper behaviour. | | | |
| Trust statement on 14:55 - Jun 20 with 1840 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 14:27 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Here it is
CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION
96. The Act provides that the Society may by special resolution as defined in the Act:
96.1. amalgamate with another society or a company registered under the Companies
Acts;
96.2. transfer its engagements to another society or a company registered under the
Companies Acts;
96.3. convert itself into a company registered under the Companies Acts
See note 96.3. |
So?
It has zero relevance to the discussions. You are just attempting to deflect. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust statement on 15:14 - Jun 20 with 1819 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 14:55 - Jun 20 by londonlisa2001 |
So?
It has zero relevance to the discussions. You are just attempting to deflect. |
You called me stupid for suggesting the SCST could be converted into Company according to the Companies act. You screenshotted the evidence I said this for some reason.
The SCST can convert itself into a Company under the Companies act according to the clauses provided in the Model terms 2016. Thats it. I've open a thread on the non football page for discussion. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 15:59 - Jun 20 with 1794 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 14:54 - Jun 20 by londonlisa2001 |
No. Not good enough.
You have repeatedly talked of ‘London associates’ and how this is benefiting them. You’ve spoken of drinks in clubs with QCs. ‘Drinking sherry with the QC in a London gentlemens club somewhere perhaps. Nothing changes perhaps they bumped into a few Socialist grandees on the way to the House of Lords. ‘
That’s what you said. And the constant reference to ‘associates’, changeable as being n London or Surrey as the mood takes you.
The implication is of people known / close to the Trust. Professional firms employed in their proper capacity on arms length commercial terms are not ‘associates getting rich in London’. As you know damn well, I am based in London and when you use such language there is an insinuation that people like me are in some way doing well out of all this. That’s why you are doing it.
If you are talking about professionals who may be quite properly employed on an arms length basis for their expertise, then stop pretending that it’s all some cosy non professional relationship. I’m sure you realise everyone involved will have employed professional advisors. You don’t refer to them
Taking money away from Swansea do you.
You know damn well you are doing it repeatedly.
I foe one have had enough of the innuendo and smears. You need to withdraw your baseless defamatory comments for once and for all.
Do you have any knowledge of anything whatsoever being done by the Trust that is in anyway not part of a usual professional relationship between an organisation and those it hires to provide expertise?
Do you have any knowledge of any part of the Trust’s relationship with its legal advisors, whether its firm of solicitors or barrister that has any implication of untoward behaviour?
Do you have any knowledge that anyone involved with the Trust is in anyway behaving improperly and is receiving any recompense for their hundreds of hours spent attempting to resolve the situation as it stands, whether financial or ‘drinking sherry on their way to the House of Lords’?
Do you have any knowledge of the Trust not behaving properly in its appointment of advisors or in the commercial arrangements it has with them?
If the answer to those questions is ‘no’ then we had better never see allegations again of such improper behaviour. |
The comments were meant as "parody"
"an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect". Whether to comic effect worked is open to question admittedly. OHL perhaps with his wierd sense of humour.
The comments were political and not personal and not a reflection on any individual and do not suggest "wrong doing " of any kind. It simply reflects the political status quo and my concerns of wealth transfer from money managed by local people into the pockets of third parties by a "not for profit" organisation. These sums you must admit could be very large.
One one side £10 annual membership fees reduced to £5 to help them get by, and the other hand employment of a QC the going rate of around £10,000 a day perhaps? taking a big slice of the SCST annual income in one day.
I will cease to do this 'parody' as it clearly distresses you. I have no wish to get int conflict with anyone. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:32 - Jun 20 with 1751 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 15:14 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You called me stupid for suggesting the SCST could be converted into Company according to the Companies act. You screenshotted the evidence I said this for some reason.
The SCST can convert itself into a Company under the Companies act according to the clauses provided in the Model terms 2016. Thats it. I've open a thread on the non football page for discussion. |
No, I didn’t.
I called your incessant nonsense about investment as stupid.
And I screenshotted you yet again with your insinuations referencing the Trust and it’s ‘associates’. As was completely clear from the rest of my post. | | | |
| Trust statement on 17:42 - Jun 20 with 1746 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 15:59 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The comments were meant as "parody"
"an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect". Whether to comic effect worked is open to question admittedly. OHL perhaps with his wierd sense of humour.
The comments were political and not personal and not a reflection on any individual and do not suggest "wrong doing " of any kind. It simply reflects the political status quo and my concerns of wealth transfer from money managed by local people into the pockets of third parties by a "not for profit" organisation. These sums you must admit could be very large.
One one side £10 annual membership fees reduced to £5 to help them get by, and the other hand employment of a QC the going rate of around £10,000 a day perhaps? taking a big slice of the SCST annual income in one day.
I will cease to do this 'parody' as it clearly distresses you. I have no wish to get int conflict with anyone. |
In addition to being uninformed and lacking knowledge of relevant technical aspects it appears you are also a coward.
You should have told us all you were merely a parody account.
At least you have now. And admitted that you are simply making it all up for ‘comic affect’.
Strange sense of humour. To besmirch people who have tried tirelessly and with zero reward to protect supporters‘ interest in the club they support and a club they were a huge part of saving, for months and months and for post after post almost daily just to be amusing.
Pathetic. You must be so proud. | | | |
| Trust statement on 18:31 - Jun 20 with 1711 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 17:42 - Jun 20 by londonlisa2001 |
In addition to being uninformed and lacking knowledge of relevant technical aspects it appears you are also a coward.
You should have told us all you were merely a parody account.
At least you have now. And admitted that you are simply making it all up for ‘comic affect’.
Strange sense of humour. To besmirch people who have tried tirelessly and with zero reward to protect supporters‘ interest in the club they support and a club they were a huge part of saving, for months and months and for post after post almost daily just to be amusing.
Pathetic. You must be so proud. |
To corect you the account is not a 'parody account'. I do on ocassion make 'parody posts' to lighten the mood while simultaenously making a serious point.
Did you really think I had seen the SCST drinking sherry with Lord Neil Kinnock in a gentlemans club on the way to the House of Lords? It could not be you they do not lets in women as far as I konw. At least they did not until recently. I cannot even be sure you are not a man called Lisa when I think about it.
Can I prove that all the funders have public school quiffs and drink champaign on the SCST profits? I think I called them Samantha and Rupert. Are they real names ? Of course not.
Do I know the lawyers need the SCFC money for black market tickets for centre court at Wimbledon? No it was speculative idle musing.
Can I prove that the funders prefer rowing to football. No I cannot.
Having said that there will be an element of truth in it no doubt. There uuslly is in my experience.
If I was a coward I would nod along and not question the path the SCST is taking. I took some pretty threatening language on the woeful SCFC2 site including threats of violence. That was until the ganged up on me and got me banned.
I was banned for my opinions as I was rigurous in not insultiing anybody. Myths were abounding on there like confetti and need challenging.
I simply do not think the SCST are 'protecting the supporters interests' and I have given reasons why. They should have been 'on the market' in 2015 or before. I said so on SCFC2.
I was told to 'get a life' or something similar. I actually think it is against the supporters interests. I am certain the good member would never go to court if it was their own money.
I have no doubting your convictions and in your belief SCST are doing the right thing. I am entitled to challenge your view. I understand investment risk from some tough investment lesssons. I now take professional advice. I know for a fact that the SCST risk profile is "off the scale". This is not approprite for a "not for profit" organisation.
It was you that was outed today over a lack of knowledge not me. I worked on the railways and do not claim to understand jargon and technical accouting and business terms. I certainly would not use that knowledge as a 'put down'. [Post edited 22 Jun 2021 15:42]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:07 - Jun 20 with 1686 views | dobjack2 |
| Trust statement on 18:31 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
To corect you the account is not a 'parody account'. I do on ocassion make 'parody posts' to lighten the mood while simultaenously making a serious point.
Did you really think I had seen the SCST drinking sherry with Lord Neil Kinnock in a gentlemans club on the way to the House of Lords? It could not be you they do not lets in women as far as I konw. At least they did not until recently. I cannot even be sure you are not a man called Lisa when I think about it.
Can I prove that all the funders have public school quiffs and drink champaign on the SCST profits? I think I called them Samantha and Rupert. Are they real names ? Of course not.
Do I know the lawyers need the SCFC money for black market tickets for centre court at Wimbledon? No it was speculative idle musing.
Can I prove that the funders prefer rowing to football. No I cannot.
Having said that there will be an element of truth in it no doubt. There uuslly is in my experience.
If I was a coward I would nod along and not question the path the SCST is taking. I took some pretty threatening language on the woeful SCFC2 site including threats of violence. That was until the ganged up on me and got me banned.
I was banned for my opinions as I was rigurous in not insultiing anybody. Myths were abounding on there like confetti and need challenging.
I simply do not think the SCST are 'protecting the supporters interests' and I have given reasons why. They should have been 'on the market' in 2015 or before. I said so on SCFC2.
I was told to 'get a life' or something similar. I actually think it is against the supporters interests. I am certain the good member would never go to court if it was their own money.
I have no doubting your convictions and in your belief SCST are doing the right thing. I am entitled to challenge your view. I understand investment risk from some tough investment lesssons. I now take professional advice. I know for a fact that the SCST risk profile is "off the scale". This is not approprite for a "not for profit" organisation.
It was you that was outed today over a lack of knowledge not me. I worked on the railways and do not claim to understand jargon and technical accouting and business terms. I certainly would not use that knowledge as a 'put down'. [Post edited 22 Jun 2021 15:42]
|
It isn’t what they did it’s the way that they did it that is the issue and I expect that the way that they did it will be at the heart of the court case. | | | |
| Trust statement on 08:47 - Jun 21 with 1542 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 18:31 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
To corect you the account is not a 'parody account'. I do on ocassion make 'parody posts' to lighten the mood while simultaenously making a serious point.
Did you really think I had seen the SCST drinking sherry with Lord Neil Kinnock in a gentlemans club on the way to the House of Lords? It could not be you they do not lets in women as far as I konw. At least they did not until recently. I cannot even be sure you are not a man called Lisa when I think about it.
Can I prove that all the funders have public school quiffs and drink champaign on the SCST profits? I think I called them Samantha and Rupert. Are they real names ? Of course not.
Do I know the lawyers need the SCFC money for black market tickets for centre court at Wimbledon? No it was speculative idle musing.
Can I prove that the funders prefer rowing to football. No I cannot.
Having said that there will be an element of truth in it no doubt. There uuslly is in my experience.
If I was a coward I would nod along and not question the path the SCST is taking. I took some pretty threatening language on the woeful SCFC2 site including threats of violence. That was until the ganged up on me and got me banned.
I was banned for my opinions as I was rigurous in not insultiing anybody. Myths were abounding on there like confetti and need challenging.
I simply do not think the SCST are 'protecting the supporters interests' and I have given reasons why. They should have been 'on the market' in 2015 or before. I said so on SCFC2.
I was told to 'get a life' or something similar. I actually think it is against the supporters interests. I am certain the good member would never go to court if it was their own money.
I have no doubting your convictions and in your belief SCST are doing the right thing. I am entitled to challenge your view. I understand investment risk from some tough investment lesssons. I now take professional advice. I know for a fact that the SCST risk profile is "off the scale". This is not approprite for a "not for profit" organisation.
It was you that was outed today over a lack of knowledge not me. I worked on the railways and do not claim to understand jargon and technical accouting and business terms. I certainly would not use that knowledge as a 'put down'. [Post edited 22 Jun 2021 15:42]
|
If only your intentions and delivery of said points was as respectful and honourable as you appear to think it is. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 09:28 - Jun 21 with 1510 views | pikeypaul |
| Trust statement on 14:00 - Jun 20 by waynekerr55 |
Not necessarily, Pike. If anything a broken promise would strengthen the Trust case if it does get to court. |
I know , that’s why I said the sellouts and their little lap dogs at the Trust that were so desperate to stop any action 1st time around hopefully are losing sleep.
Anything that helps the Trusts case is obviously good news for all real Swansea City F C fans. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:17 - Jun 22 with 1366 views | ATFV |
| Trust statement on 18:31 - Jun 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
To corect you the account is not a 'parody account'. I do on ocassion make 'parody posts' to lighten the mood while simultaenously making a serious point.
Did you really think I had seen the SCST drinking sherry with Lord Neil Kinnock in a gentlemans club on the way to the House of Lords? It could not be you they do not lets in women as far as I konw. At least they did not until recently. I cannot even be sure you are not a man called Lisa when I think about it.
Can I prove that all the funders have public school quiffs and drink champaign on the SCST profits? I think I called them Samantha and Rupert. Are they real names ? Of course not.
Do I know the lawyers need the SCFC money for black market tickets for centre court at Wimbledon? No it was speculative idle musing.
Can I prove that the funders prefer rowing to football. No I cannot.
Having said that there will be an element of truth in it no doubt. There uuslly is in my experience.
If I was a coward I would nod along and not question the path the SCST is taking. I took some pretty threatening language on the woeful SCFC2 site including threats of violence. That was until the ganged up on me and got me banned.
I was banned for my opinions as I was rigurous in not insultiing anybody. Myths were abounding on there like confetti and need challenging.
I simply do not think the SCST are 'protecting the supporters interests' and I have given reasons why. They should have been 'on the market' in 2015 or before. I said so on SCFC2.
I was told to 'get a life' or something similar. I actually think it is against the supporters interests. I am certain the good member would never go to court if it was their own money.
I have no doubting your convictions and in your belief SCST are doing the right thing. I am entitled to challenge your view. I understand investment risk from some tough investment lesssons. I now take professional advice. I know for a fact that the SCST risk profile is "off the scale". This is not approprite for a "not for profit" organisation.
It was you that was outed today over a lack of knowledge not me. I worked on the railways and do not claim to understand jargon and technical accouting and business terms. I certainly would not use that knowledge as a 'put down'. [Post edited 22 Jun 2021 15:42]
|
" I worked on the railways and do not claim to understand jargon and technical accouting and business terms."
Hang on, earlier in this thread you were going on about being involved with company dilutions etc - now you're The Fat Controller from Thomas the Tank Engine?
No wonder you thought it would take £700m to dilute the Trust's holding and get entirely owned every time you try to be clever only to be thoroughly debunked by a professional and expert like Lisa.
Think it's time you REMOVED, stop trying to smear the Trust and stick to cleaning railway sleepers...
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Trust statement on 14:23 - Jun 22 with 1337 views | KeithHaynes |
| Trust statement on 14:54 - Jun 20 by londonlisa2001 |
No. Not good enough.
You have repeatedly talked of ‘London associates’ and how this is benefiting them. You’ve spoken of drinks in clubs with QCs. ‘Drinking sherry with the QC in a London gentlemens club somewhere perhaps. Nothing changes perhaps they bumped into a few Socialist grandees on the way to the House of Lords. ‘
That’s what you said. And the constant reference to ‘associates’, changeable as being n London or Surrey as the mood takes you.
The implication is of people known / close to the Trust. Professional firms employed in their proper capacity on arms length commercial terms are not ‘associates getting rich in London’. As you know damn well, I am based in London and when you use such language there is an insinuation that people like me are in some way doing well out of all this. That’s why you are doing it.
If you are talking about professionals who may be quite properly employed on an arms length basis for their expertise, then stop pretending that it’s all some cosy non professional relationship. I’m sure you realise everyone involved will have employed professional advisors. You don’t refer to them
Taking money away from Swansea do you.
You know damn well you are doing it repeatedly.
I foe one have had enough of the innuendo and smears. You need to withdraw your baseless defamatory comments for once and for all.
Do you have any knowledge of anything whatsoever being done by the Trust that is in anyway not part of a usual professional relationship between an organisation and those it hires to provide expertise?
Do you have any knowledge of any part of the Trust’s relationship with its legal advisors, whether its firm of solicitors or barrister that has any implication of untoward behaviour?
Do you have any knowledge that anyone involved with the Trust is in anyway behaving improperly and is receiving any recompense for their hundreds of hours spent attempting to resolve the situation as it stands, whether financial or ‘drinking sherry on their way to the House of Lords’?
Do you have any knowledge of the Trust not behaving properly in its appointment of advisors or in the commercial arrangements it has with them?
If the answer to those questions is ‘no’ then we had better never see allegations again of such improper behaviour. |
Any improper suggestions that are on here have been removed, regardless of the poster,are there more ? |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 14:30 - Jun 22 with 1335 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 13:17 - Jun 22 by ATFV |
" I worked on the railways and do not claim to understand jargon and technical accouting and business terms."
Hang on, earlier in this thread you were going on about being involved with company dilutions etc - now you're The Fat Controller from Thomas the Tank Engine?
No wonder you thought it would take £700m to dilute the Trust's holding and get entirely owned every time you try to be clever only to be thoroughly debunked by a professional and expert like Lisa.
Think it's time you REMOVED, stop trying to smear the Trust and stick to cleaning railway sleepers...
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Gawd help us. Not much point explaining the mathematic concept of an 'asymptote' to this bloke.
[Post edited 22 Jun 2021 16:30]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 17:03 - Jun 22 with 1264 views | ATFV |
| Trust statement on 14:30 - Jun 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Gawd help us. Not much point explaining the mathematic concept of an 'asymptote' to this bloke.
[Post edited 22 Jun 2021 16:30]
|
You wouldn't know a mathematical concept if Carol Vorderman smacked you over the head with it - as your humiliating suggestion that £700m would be needed to dilute the Trust proved.
It's like every post you make regarding the Americans and the sellers - they just don't add up. | | | |
| Trust statement on 20:23 - Jun 22 with 1212 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 17:03 - Jun 22 by ATFV |
You wouldn't know a mathematical concept if Carol Vorderman smacked you over the head with it - as your humiliating suggestion that £700m would be needed to dilute the Trust proved.
It's like every post you make regarding the Americans and the sellers - they just don't add up. |
Not sure whyCarol was dragged into this spat.
If she's a Trust member I want to join.
She can smack me any time she likes | |
| |
| Trust statement on 20:56 - Jun 22 with 1199 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 17:03 - Jun 22 by ATFV |
You wouldn't know a mathematical concept if Carol Vorderman smacked you over the head with it - as your humiliating suggestion that £700m would be needed to dilute the Trust proved.
It's like every post you make regarding the Americans and the sellers - they just don't add up. |
Getting smacked by Carol Vordoman is open to vivid imaginations of many on this forum I have no doubt. This is certainly an issue where consensus can be found. I have to say I respect her greatly as a performer, social influencer and newly found patriot.
I stand by the figures I quoted. These relate to Swansea being worth £60m or so and the holding reduced to 1%. It will take hundreds of millions from this position in the EFL pyramid.
The SCST actually stated they could be diluted to nothing. This is technically impossible. The statement was misleading but I believe was done in error rather than deliberately to confuse. With accountants in the camp they must know this.
To dilute them to 10% will take around £60m. To halve them again gets more and more expensive. Its a myth that it is easy to dilute. This myth goes along with a range of other myths abounding on forums. Swansea would have to be in the National league to make it possible. In this case the SCST bank account would be twice the value of their holding with no dilution. Dilution would be pretty much irrelevant in that case.
The SCST apologists have always promoted the idea that the US owners are asset strippers and dubious hedge funders with no interest in he club itself. The recent Convertible Loan Note came as a total shock to them. Asset strippers do not invest they simply sell.
I suugest you speak to an adult with knowledge of mathematics to check the sums.
Railway technologies are actually quite technical. Its not a matter of 'scrubbing sleepers' which is a practice I am not familiar with. [Post edited 22 Jun 2021 20:58]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 21:32 - Jun 22 with 1178 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 20:56 - Jun 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Getting smacked by Carol Vordoman is open to vivid imaginations of many on this forum I have no doubt. This is certainly an issue where consensus can be found. I have to say I respect her greatly as a performer, social influencer and newly found patriot.
I stand by the figures I quoted. These relate to Swansea being worth £60m or so and the holding reduced to 1%. It will take hundreds of millions from this position in the EFL pyramid.
The SCST actually stated they could be diluted to nothing. This is technically impossible. The statement was misleading but I believe was done in error rather than deliberately to confuse. With accountants in the camp they must know this.
To dilute them to 10% will take around £60m. To halve them again gets more and more expensive. Its a myth that it is easy to dilute. This myth goes along with a range of other myths abounding on forums. Swansea would have to be in the National league to make it possible. In this case the SCST bank account would be twice the value of their holding with no dilution. Dilution would be pretty much irrelevant in that case.
The SCST apologists have always promoted the idea that the US owners are asset strippers and dubious hedge funders with no interest in he club itself. The recent Convertible Loan Note came as a total shock to them. Asset strippers do not invest they simply sell.
I suugest you speak to an adult with knowledge of mathematics to check the sums.
Railway technologies are actually quite technical. Its not a matter of 'scrubbing sleepers' which is a practice I am not familiar with. [Post edited 22 Jun 2021 20:58]
|
I see you're still completely ignoring what people have been telling you and dreaming up fanciful theories.
All in vain. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 21:46 - Jun 22 with 1173 views | max936 |
| Trust statement on 21:32 - Jun 22 by Chief |
I see you're still completely ignoring what people have been telling you and dreaming up fanciful theories.
All in vain. |
He's done same, in his million posts and threads and people are stilling giving him the oxygen he needs to breathe, Unbelievably. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 21:52 - Jun 22 with 1169 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 21:46 - Jun 22 by max936 |
He's done same, in his million posts and threads and people are stilling giving him the oxygen he needs to breathe, Unbelievably. |
Get your calculator out and work out how much money the US people need to invest in Swansea city to dilute the SCST to 1% holding assuming the club is valued currently at £50m.
The SCST highlighted the risk of dilution as a reason for going to court. [Post edited 22 Jun 2021 21:53]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
