| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 11:46 - Apr 13 with 1294 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 08:48 - Apr 13 by 3swan |
It was not only avoiding the Trust getting to 25%, but also excluding them from any talks prior to the announcement.
The new owners would have had a set amount that they would be prepared to pay for the share ownership in the club.
Including any Trust shares would have diluted the offer to the sellers. |
The Trust would have got to 25% and "protection" what then?
The Trust with £880k would want to keep the 25% and could use a veto.
The veto would be used to prevent new investment by others thereby protecting their 25%. The Trust in those days were anti investment and anti dilution. They lived off the back of Huw Jenkins's work. The miracle could not go on for ever.
There were only two choices.
a) With the Trust as 25% in league 2 (Exeter city model)
b) Foreign investors in the Championship or Premier league. (Burnely model)
No doubt some humble accountant would quite fancy rolling up for the Trust derby v Exeter or even better Wrexham as deputy Chairman and heading straight for the VIP suite.
The Trust cannot manage money either by choice or constitution and therefore is of no value to the club long term. It might have value if the club were committed to dividends but it has only paid them once.
The Trust excluded themselves from talks by stating in the press they would never sell any of their shares. |  |
|  |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 12:00 - Apr 13 with 1269 views | Whiterockin |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 11:46 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust would have got to 25% and "protection" what then?
The Trust with £880k would want to keep the 25% and could use a veto.
The veto would be used to prevent new investment by others thereby protecting their 25%. The Trust in those days were anti investment and anti dilution. They lived off the back of Huw Jenkins's work. The miracle could not go on for ever.
There were only two choices.
a) With the Trust as 25% in league 2 (Exeter city model)
b) Foreign investors in the Championship or Premier league. (Burnely model)
No doubt some humble accountant would quite fancy rolling up for the Trust derby v Exeter or even better Wrexham as deputy Chairman and heading straight for the VIP suite.
The Trust cannot manage money either by choice or constitution and therefore is of no value to the club long term. It might have value if the club were committed to dividends but it has only paid them once.
The Trust excluded themselves from talks by stating in the press they would never sell any of their shares. |
The last paragraph is not the truth. I have provided you with evidence of this before. |  | | |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 12:04 - Apr 13 with 1266 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 09:26 - Apr 13 by Whiterockin |
If the aim of the majority shareholders IS to dilute the minor shareholders, it would be pointless in the mid to long term. Just throwing good money after bad, yes there would be a short term influx of funds, but it would be like playing poker, the money guys normally win. |
Way off the mark. It does not matter to them if the minor shareholders have 10% 5% or 2%. One minor shareholder is sponsoring the stadium (for 10 years)
There is I believe right to force buy minor shareholder out for very low holdings but that would be bad business and they probably have already signed tag on drag on rights anyway. They have given the Trust 5% protection so probably do not want to go anywhere near that.
It gets harder and hard to dilute small holding and cheaper for small holders to contribute. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 12:09 - Apr 13 with 1264 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 09:13 - Apr 13 by PrettySheetyCity |
Based on this https://www.swanseacity.com/club/ownership-statement it seems the Trust owns 11.52% of the shares in the Club.
I've seen a lot of people being quite vocal about how the Trust has been diluted etc, but the only way the Trust can maintain a large stake in the Club is via fresh investment. If the Trust put £1million into the Club, at £17.85 a share (which is what the shares are worth according to the Companies House document), that's around 56,022 shares. That would be enough to push the Trust's stake up to 14-15% assuming the American owners don't match the investment.
Where does the £1million come from? Well if each fan in the Stadium over Easter gave at least £52, the Trust would have the funds to purchase more shares. Something tells me that if push came to shove, a lot of the vocal critics of the Trust and those bemoaning another dilution would scarper if asked to contribute money...
Anyway, I can't wait for the Club's accounts to be published so people fully understand just how crap the financial situation at the Club is. I'm dreading it. |
I reckon you are smart enough to work out the actual valuation of the club. This is progress.
We know the share price £17.85 we know the number of share bought and we know the dilution.
So what is the overall value of the club.? How many shares to the Trust have?
Kindly | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 12:13 - Apr 13 with 1262 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 12:00 - Apr 13 by Whiterockin |
The last paragraph is not the truth. I have provided you with evidence of this before. |
It is the truth and you know it. You cannot rewrite history on this particular forum. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 12:42 - Apr 13 with 1231 views | Whiterockin |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 12:13 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is the truth and you know it. You cannot rewrite history on this particular forum. |
A Statement by the Swansea City Supporters’ Trust
Alan Lewis
Alan Lewis
The Swansea City Supporters’ Trust notes the reports in the local media following the recent fans forum with the club’s majority shareholders and wishes to clarify and correct some of the points raised.
As per our forum address in October 2016, our first meeting with the majority shareholders took place on April 9th 2016. Between that date and the completion of the sale in July, no offer was made for all, or part, of the Trust shareholding. Any meetings with Trust representatives, referred to in the media as happening in March, actually happened from April onwards. In those meetings we stated that, while our preferred position was to retain a stake in the football club, this would be dependent on certain criteria needing to be met.
It is important for our members to be aware that at no time has the Supporters Trust ever stated that we would not sell all, or part, of our shareholding under any circumstances. The Supporters Trust has publicly stated many times (including prior to the sale being completed) that the Trust would not rule out a sale if it was in the best interests of the club and our members. Furthermore, any decision regarding a sale would have to be made by our Members, and not the Trust Board. This position was also outlined to our original shareholding partners in March 2016, once we became aware that a new deal was on the table, when we wrote a letter advising them that we could be prepared to sell some of the Trust stake should it be in our interests to do so. | | | |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 13:26 - Apr 13 with 1175 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 12:42 - Apr 13 by Whiterockin |
A Statement by the Swansea City Supporters’ Trust
Alan Lewis
Alan Lewis
The Swansea City Supporters’ Trust notes the reports in the local media following the recent fans forum with the club’s majority shareholders and wishes to clarify and correct some of the points raised.
As per our forum address in October 2016, our first meeting with the majority shareholders took place on April 9th 2016. Between that date and the completion of the sale in July, no offer was made for all, or part, of the Trust shareholding. Any meetings with Trust representatives, referred to in the media as happening in March, actually happened from April onwards. In those meetings we stated that, while our preferred position was to retain a stake in the football club, this would be dependent on certain criteria needing to be met.
It is important for our members to be aware that at no time has the Supporters Trust ever stated that we would not sell all, or part, of our shareholding under any circumstances. The Supporters Trust has publicly stated many times (including prior to the sale being completed) that the Trust would not rule out a sale if it was in the best interests of the club and our members. Furthermore, any decision regarding a sale would have to be made by our Members, and not the Trust Board. This position was also outlined to our original shareholding partners in March 2016, once we became aware that a new deal was on the table, when we wrote a letter advising them that we could be prepared to sell some of the Trust stake should it be in our interests to do so. |
This is not seemingly consistent with easily obtained statements made in 2015 relating to the 2015 offer. It is probably reported by the Press Association.
Regrettably for the Trust it is a case of closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. No one corrected the 2015 statement so it was deemed by the other shareholders as valid. Over a year later this statement was made.
The wording clearly outline the obstacle for a sale in that there was no mandate. If the Trust were willing to consider selling any of their shares they surely would have got the opinion of the members on this matter in advance of any subsequent offer to allow a timely yes / no response.
A buyer wants a yes or a no. If he gets a 'maybe' he will move on. That is just how it works. In the event the seller gave the seller a second chance but they could not agree a deal and the buyer walked away. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 14:09 - Apr 13 with 1133 views | Whiterockin |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 13:26 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is not seemingly consistent with easily obtained statements made in 2015 relating to the 2015 offer. It is probably reported by the Press Association.
Regrettably for the Trust it is a case of closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. No one corrected the 2015 statement so it was deemed by the other shareholders as valid. Over a year later this statement was made.
The wording clearly outline the obstacle for a sale in that there was no mandate. If the Trust were willing to consider selling any of their shares they surely would have got the opinion of the members on this matter in advance of any subsequent offer to allow a timely yes / no response.
A buyer wants a yes or a no. If he gets a 'maybe' he will move on. That is just how it works. In the event the seller gave the seller a second chance but they could not agree a deal and the buyer walked away. |
You can't deal with facts can you. This is an official trust statement available on their website. I was also at the fans forum referenced and can clearly remember the discussion.
Regarding the possible Moores and Noell purchase in 2015 it was not for the club, but a 30% stake. Rejected by the majority shareholders at the time as well as the trust so irrelevant too the eventual sale. Or are you saying the majority shareholders shouldn't have been considered because they rejected the 2015 deal.
The Trust clearly stated that if an offer was made it would be put to the members. You can not ask members to vote on a hypothetical offer, facts needed to be provided.
Regarding a yes or no or they will move on. The Moores/Noell deal was in negotiations for about 9 months. The Levien/Kaplan deal about 6 months. The timescale was never an issue and there was time for the trust to be involved, if correct procedures had been followed.
Finally I will not waste any more of my time correcting you otherwise it will bore the pants off posters as you have done in the past.
Adios | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 14:48 - Apr 13 with 1088 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 14:09 - Apr 13 by Whiterockin |
You can't deal with facts can you. This is an official trust statement available on their website. I was also at the fans forum referenced and can clearly remember the discussion.
Regarding the possible Moores and Noell purchase in 2015 it was not for the club, but a 30% stake. Rejected by the majority shareholders at the time as well as the trust so irrelevant too the eventual sale. Or are you saying the majority shareholders shouldn't have been considered because they rejected the 2015 deal.
The Trust clearly stated that if an offer was made it would be put to the members. You can not ask members to vote on a hypothetical offer, facts needed to be provided.
Regarding a yes or no or they will move on. The Moores/Noell deal was in negotiations for about 9 months. The Levien/Kaplan deal about 6 months. The timescale was never an issue and there was time for the trust to be involved, if correct procedures had been followed.
Finally I will not waste any more of my time correcting you otherwise it will bore the pants off posters as you have done in the past.
Adios |
The Trust have never sold a single share, spent £400,000 on legal advice and wasted 6 years of time. None of this is not their fault according to some fans.
You can trust in this body if you want to. Its a free country. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 16:10 - Apr 13 with 1025 views | magicdaps10 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 14:48 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust have never sold a single share, spent £400,000 on legal advice and wasted 6 years of time. None of this is not their fault according to some fans.
You can trust in this body if you want to. Its a free country. |
None of which would have happened if the sell outs had told them about the sale to Kaplan and Levein!!
You have to hit the source of the troubles if you are going to point blame.
The big question needs to be asked, why did they not want them to know!? I wonder! |  |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 16:28 - Apr 13 with 1001 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 14:09 - Apr 13 by Whiterockin |
You can't deal with facts can you. This is an official trust statement available on their website. I was also at the fans forum referenced and can clearly remember the discussion.
Regarding the possible Moores and Noell purchase in 2015 it was not for the club, but a 30% stake. Rejected by the majority shareholders at the time as well as the trust so irrelevant too the eventual sale. Or are you saying the majority shareholders shouldn't have been considered because they rejected the 2015 deal.
The Trust clearly stated that if an offer was made it would be put to the members. You can not ask members to vote on a hypothetical offer, facts needed to be provided.
Regarding a yes or no or they will move on. The Moores/Noell deal was in negotiations for about 9 months. The Levien/Kaplan deal about 6 months. The timescale was never an issue and there was time for the trust to be involved, if correct procedures had been followed.
Finally I will not waste any more of my time correcting you otherwise it will bore the pants off posters as you have done in the past.
Adios |
You have more patience than me, fair play. |  | | |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 16:52 - Apr 13 with 958 views | BillyChong |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 16:10 - Apr 13 by magicdaps10 |
None of which would have happened if the sell outs had told them about the sale to Kaplan and Levein!!
You have to hit the source of the troubles if you are going to point blame.
The big question needs to be asked, why did they not want them to know!? I wonder! |
Mentioning the Shareholders Agreement usually stops his nonsensical ramblings on a thread |  | | |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 17:36 - Apr 13 with 919 views | magicdaps10 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 16:52 - Apr 13 by BillyChong |
Mentioning the Shareholders Agreement usually stops his nonsensical ramblings on a thread |
It's far more than nonsense, it's damn right ignorance and clear deflection. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 17:44 - Apr 13 with 909 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 16:10 - Apr 13 by magicdaps10 |
None of which would have happened if the sell outs had told them about the sale to Kaplan and Levein!!
You have to hit the source of the troubles if you are going to point blame.
The big question needs to be asked, why did they not want them to know!? I wonder! |
It would have made no difference to any thing. Selling is not easy. It is a delicate process. Introducing people who said they would never sell a few months earlier would have been pointless. We are talking about an organisation that cannot work to a deadline.
The legal case had 6 year time limit apparently and they could not present any sort of case in SIX years. Brexit was sorted quicker. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 17:54 - Apr 13 with 887 views | magicdaps10 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 17:44 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It would have made no difference to any thing. Selling is not easy. It is a delicate process. Introducing people who said they would never sell a few months earlier would have been pointless. We are talking about an organisation that cannot work to a deadline.
The legal case had 6 year time limit apparently and they could not present any sort of case in SIX years. Brexit was sorted quicker. |
That doesn't wash!
I only take a cheap excuse from your post in regards to not telling them. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 17:58 - Apr 13 with 883 views | guthrieintherain |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 17:44 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It would have made no difference to any thing. Selling is not easy. It is a delicate process. Introducing people who said they would never sell a few months earlier would have been pointless. We are talking about an organisation that cannot work to a deadline.
The legal case had 6 year time limit apparently and they could not present any sort of case in SIX years. Brexit was sorted quicker. |
The trust are a non entity I stopped my membership the day after they colluded behind the members backs to revoke court action
The membership should have been allowed to decide.
Whether it was right or wrong to go to court is of no concern now water under the bridge.
As is what happened in 2016 does not matter a jot and no amount of debating on here will change it. [Post edited 13 Apr 2023 18:03]
| |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:12 - Apr 13 with 857 views | magicdaps10 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 09:26 - Apr 13 by JackDragon |
So they put in £1m plus and convert that into shares thus increasing their share % and diluting everyone else’s then they sell their shareholding for a higher price per share. That's the short and tall of it as I see it. STID. |
Just read in and ties in with my post prior.
It's clear and obvious what is going on but yet some see it as being done for the clubs benefit........itsonly being done to benefit themselves when selling shares.
Arguably they might not get what they have put in but its all about biting the bullet and getting as much out of it as they can possibly do so.
As I said, hopefully it gets done quick and then it's fingers crossed that it's someone who is proactive and engaging that comes in. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:23 - Apr 13 with 852 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 17:54 - Apr 13 by magicdaps10 |
That doesn't wash!
I only take a cheap excuse from your post in regards to not telling them. |
They did tell them 4 months before the sale was completed. The Trust could not commit to a sale as they did not have a mandate. They did not have a mandate because their position was they did not want to sell in 2016. If they had wanted to sell they would have got a mandate in 2015. The other owners knew this .
It does wash because it has been tested out by lawyers. No one would fund the case because the case was weak. Fully washed.
To quote Joe Strummer "I fought the law and the law won". Now the Trust face the triple forces of legal costs, dilution and inflation. These are all value destroying. Cash is king. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:30 - Apr 13 with 846 views | guthrieintherain |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:23 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They did tell them 4 months before the sale was completed. The Trust could not commit to a sale as they did not have a mandate. They did not have a mandate because their position was they did not want to sell in 2016. If they had wanted to sell they would have got a mandate in 2015. The other owners knew this .
It does wash because it has been tested out by lawyers. No one would fund the case because the case was weak. Fully washed.
To quote Joe Strummer "I fought the law and the law won". Now the Trust face the triple forces of legal costs, dilution and inflation. These are all value destroying. Cash is king. |
Cracking film Groundhog Day funnier than this thread as well. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:35 - Apr 13 with 844 views | magicdaps10 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:23 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They did tell them 4 months before the sale was completed. The Trust could not commit to a sale as they did not have a mandate. They did not have a mandate because their position was they did not want to sell in 2016. If they had wanted to sell they would have got a mandate in 2015. The other owners knew this .
It does wash because it has been tested out by lawyers. No one would fund the case because the case was weak. Fully washed.
To quote Joe Strummer "I fought the law and the law won". Now the Trust face the triple forces of legal costs, dilution and inflation. These are all value destroying. Cash is king. |
You just nailed it all there with the final words....Cash is king.
I will add 3 words that are lost due to your 3 words
Integrity is lost.
Telling someone when it's too late doesn't wash at all! I get it, they wanted to sell at the highest wave but integrity was lost........no taking away their success and their doings at the time but the sight of cash was the reason their morals and honesty went out the window.
You basically hit the nail on the head with them being greedy in their push in seeing cash was king. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:58 - Apr 13 with 799 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:35 - Apr 13 by magicdaps10 |
You just nailed it all there with the final words....Cash is king.
I will add 3 words that are lost due to your 3 words
Integrity is lost.
Telling someone when it's too late doesn't wash at all! I get it, they wanted to sell at the highest wave but integrity was lost........no taking away their success and their doings at the time but the sight of cash was the reason their morals and honesty went out the window.
You basically hit the nail on the head with them being greedy in their push in seeing cash was king. |
If they said "our shares are up for sale" there would be up to £15m in their bank account.
It was not too late and the US people were kind enough to give them a second chance in 2017. They messed that up as well with two chairmen resigning.
Save you pseudo Christian moralising for the Sunday school. I am the only one calling out the filth routinely chanted on the east stand.
£16m of cash now £17m has been given to Winter pay the staff and you bad mouth them. Write to Winter and tell him to give it back. The club goes into administration and 200 are laid off immediately. Even Trundle knows that.
Do you think the 300 are paid in marbles or scratch cards? [Post edited 13 Apr 2023 19:00]
| |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 19:04 - Apr 13 with 785 views | magicdaps10 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 18:58 - Apr 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If they said "our shares are up for sale" there would be up to £15m in their bank account.
It was not too late and the US people were kind enough to give them a second chance in 2017. They messed that up as well with two chairmen resigning.
Save you pseudo Christian moralising for the Sunday school. I am the only one calling out the filth routinely chanted on the east stand.
£16m of cash now £17m has been given to Winter pay the staff and you bad mouth them. Write to Winter and tell him to give it back. The club goes into administration and 200 are laid off immediately. Even Trundle knows that.
Do you think the 300 are paid in marbles or scratch cards? [Post edited 13 Apr 2023 19:00]
|
Just going to leave that end there with this- 👆 Read that folks 🙈 | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 20:24 - Apr 13 with 729 views | max936 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 08:48 - Apr 13 by 3swan |
It was not only avoiding the Trust getting to 25%, but also excluding them from any talks prior to the announcement.
The new owners would have had a set amount that they would be prepared to pay for the share ownership in the club.
Including any Trust shares would have diluted the offer to the sellers. |
Don't talk sense Clive its lost on some on here. |  |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 20:34 - Apr 13 with 725 views | max936 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 09:13 - Apr 13 by PrettySheetyCity |
Based on this https://www.swanseacity.com/club/ownership-statement it seems the Trust owns 11.52% of the shares in the Club.
I've seen a lot of people being quite vocal about how the Trust has been diluted etc, but the only way the Trust can maintain a large stake in the Club is via fresh investment. If the Trust put £1million into the Club, at £17.85 a share (which is what the shares are worth according to the Companies House document), that's around 56,022 shares. That would be enough to push the Trust's stake up to 14-15% assuming the American owners don't match the investment.
Where does the £1million come from? Well if each fan in the Stadium over Easter gave at least £52, the Trust would have the funds to purchase more shares. Something tells me that if push came to shove, a lot of the vocal critics of the Trust and those bemoaning another dilution would scarper if asked to contribute money...
Anyway, I can't wait for the Club's accounts to be published so people fully understand just how crap the financial situation at the Club is. I'm dreading it. |
To right they would scarper with this lot of clueless oaf's now on the trust board, they'll throw it all away for a prawn sandwich which is what they've done with their ridiculous decision to sign that "deal" 18 months ago.
They won't get a penny out of the members they did have anymore, not a chance in hell, they even asked the owners to include trust membership in with the season tickets only to get another resounding no, last thing these owners want is the trust to get stronger, not that they will with the weaklings at the helm now. | |
| |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 20:37 - Apr 13 with 725 views | max936 |
| Swansea City announce new cash injection **UPDATED on 09:26 - Apr 13 by Whiterockin |
If the aim of the majority shareholders IS to dilute the minor shareholders, it would be pointless in the mid to long term. Just throwing good money after bad, yes there would be a short term influx of funds, but it would be like playing poker, the money guys normally win. |
They wouldn't allow them to put money in, even if they had the wherewithal to do so, 100% guaranteed. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
