| Jake Silverstein 19:10 - Aug 7 with 17458 views | Treforys_Jack |
So another shareholder, good news or not ? |  | | |  |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:43 - Aug 20 with 887 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:58 - Aug 20 by BillyChong |
The U.K. inflation rate is currently 1%. Anything else you care to randomly guess, or provide stab in the dark figures around? I can’t see many falling for your bullshite propaganda, bar fellow sellout pal Badlands. |
From your own figures in terms of interest the Trust have missed out on around £9000 of interest payments for two year from banks by not tieing the money up for 3 years. Roughly £4500 per annum on their £620k cash holding. They were paid a club dividend about 5 years ago so assuming the same approach they would have missed out on around £18,000 interest payments over the last 5 years. Not good.
Inflation is currently 1% and rising due in the main to the Covid crisis. The average for 2017-2019 was 2.3%. It was over 4% in 2012. The BoE wants to keep it below a target of 3%. In planning to manage £12m in cash after the London people have pocketted their jumbo bounty the difference in Building society interest and inflation will be around 2% if the money is tied up. Remember it could be another 30 years before armageddon.
2% of £12m is £240,000 per annum plus £30,000 running costs. This will eat into the nest egg year on year. After the great divorce the Trust has to become quite differnt organisation to fullfull its already compromised brief. Of the 5 main objectives given on the website only one remains (maintaining professional football in Swansea). It must become a financial management organisation ever watchful of the market fundementals. This is what the members voted for. Who woud be mad enough to sit on £12m hoping the inflation rates do not go up for 30 years?. Silverstein is loaning money to the club and does not want the money back in the short term. The Trust will be giving money to the banks after giving away 40-50% of their organisation to London agencies for legal action. That is the grim reality even considering a 100% win. Anything other that a clear win does not bear thinking about. That is why the QC said 'last resort'. [Post edited 20 Aug 2020 16:49]
|  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 17:00 - Aug 20 with 871 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:12 - Aug 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The rates given are in the annual company records. They are actually getting 0.15% for the last two years . Why are they not getting your 0.85% now.? This is not made up. Am the only person asking these obvious questions. ?
Rates are plummeting plus will not recover for some time. Inflation is going up and savers are in for very hard time. Locking up money in a bank means stagnation. Everyone knows this. What use is 0.85% when inflation is 3-4%. ? Stagnation.
Last resort means the case might be strong (50:50? ) and the fees exhorbitant. A massive gamble. |
I would say they are only getting 0.15% because it's an insrant access account. If they sold their shares they wouldn't need all of the money, they could keep 1-2 million in an instant access then tie the rest up for a few years to get a btter rate.
Again you have assumed a higher rate of inflation, can you see the future so clearly? Regardless, money in a bank earning interest is safer than putting it on the stock market, especially in these traumatic times.
Nobody considers 50-50 to be a strong case, that is an absurd statement. Strong would be around 70-30.
The fees could be exhorbitant if the Americans wanted to drag it out but they will look at it from all angles and if they are not certain of winning they won't want to drag it out because it could cost them millions too. Is it still the case that the judge can make the losers pay all expenses? In which case if the trust won the owners could be forced to pay them the value of the shares AND the court costs too. That's why it would be better to settle out of court, the only people guaranteed to win in a court case are in the legal profession! |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 17:31 - Aug 20 with 851 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:43 - Aug 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
From your own figures in terms of interest the Trust have missed out on around £9000 of interest payments for two year from banks by not tieing the money up for 3 years. Roughly £4500 per annum on their £620k cash holding. They were paid a club dividend about 5 years ago so assuming the same approach they would have missed out on around £18,000 interest payments over the last 5 years. Not good.
Inflation is currently 1% and rising due in the main to the Covid crisis. The average for 2017-2019 was 2.3%. It was over 4% in 2012. The BoE wants to keep it below a target of 3%. In planning to manage £12m in cash after the London people have pocketted their jumbo bounty the difference in Building society interest and inflation will be around 2% if the money is tied up. Remember it could be another 30 years before armageddon.
2% of £12m is £240,000 per annum plus £30,000 running costs. This will eat into the nest egg year on year. After the great divorce the Trust has to become quite differnt organisation to fullfull its already compromised brief. Of the 5 main objectives given on the website only one remains (maintaining professional football in Swansea). It must become a financial management organisation ever watchful of the market fundementals. This is what the members voted for. Who woud be mad enough to sit on £12m hoping the inflation rates do not go up for 30 years?. Silverstein is loaning money to the club and does not want the money back in the short term. The Trust will be giving money to the banks after giving away 40-50% of their organisation to London agencies for legal action. That is the grim reality even considering a 100% win. Anything other that a clear win does not bear thinking about. That is why the QC said 'last resort'. [Post edited 20 Aug 2020 16:49]
|
You seem to have your figures transposed it is £21 million out if the pockets of the individuals that caused the unfair prejudice, plus of course legal costs.
You also seem to have forgotten the actual reason legal action is generally considered a last resort. Let me try and help you again..
The sensible suggestion that Counsel gave, to try and agree a settlement in recompense for the Unfair Prejudice (on which he staked his considerable reputation, on adjudging we had a STRONG LEGAL CASE), was merely the standard recommendation any, responsible, competent and honest legal professional would make.
In that case Legal action is obviously the ‘LAST RESORT’ in seeking recompense, i.e. if an agreement for a fair / acceptable settlement for the loss inflicted, cannot be agreed, between the parties involved.
Of course none of that lessens the ROBUSTNESS or the POWER of our STRONG LEGAL CASE.
An accommodation was achieved and the Trust bent over backwards to make a deal, most beneficial to the new majority owners. The deal was recommended to the members by the Trust Board and agreed by the members.
After the new majority owners even being allowed to (to their benefit) change the details of the deal previously agreed, then unilaterally withdrawing from the deal. I think that was pretty much the end of the road in achieving recompense for the significant loss suffered, short of legal action; aside from having doormat tattooed on our heads, so the new owners understand that if they can the cheat us out of £21 million value, they can do whatever they want and never be held to account.
Another quote from a legal site that might help you further understand...
‘Courts actively encourage parties to resolve their disputes without court intervention and consider litigation to be a ‘last resort’. As Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals become increasingly overburdened with cases and whilst resources and funding continue to diminish, it is not hard to see why the courts take this ‘last resort’ approach.’ |  | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:16 - Aug 20 with 821 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 17:31 - Aug 20 by chad |
You seem to have your figures transposed it is £21 million out if the pockets of the individuals that caused the unfair prejudice, plus of course legal costs.
You also seem to have forgotten the actual reason legal action is generally considered a last resort. Let me try and help you again..
The sensible suggestion that Counsel gave, to try and agree a settlement in recompense for the Unfair Prejudice (on which he staked his considerable reputation, on adjudging we had a STRONG LEGAL CASE), was merely the standard recommendation any, responsible, competent and honest legal professional would make.
In that case Legal action is obviously the ‘LAST RESORT’ in seeking recompense, i.e. if an agreement for a fair / acceptable settlement for the loss inflicted, cannot be agreed, between the parties involved.
Of course none of that lessens the ROBUSTNESS or the POWER of our STRONG LEGAL CASE.
An accommodation was achieved and the Trust bent over backwards to make a deal, most beneficial to the new majority owners. The deal was recommended to the members by the Trust Board and agreed by the members.
After the new majority owners even being allowed to (to their benefit) change the details of the deal previously agreed, then unilaterally withdrawing from the deal. I think that was pretty much the end of the road in achieving recompense for the significant loss suffered, short of legal action; aside from having doormat tattooed on our heads, so the new owners understand that if they can the cheat us out of £21 million value, they can do whatever they want and never be held to account.
Another quote from a legal site that might help you further understand...
‘Courts actively encourage parties to resolve their disputes without court intervention and consider litigation to be a ‘last resort’. As Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals become increasingly overburdened with cases and whilst resources and funding continue to diminish, it is not hard to see why the courts take this ‘last resort’ approach.’ |
You have a very optimistic view on the Trusts which probably will not occur if it goes ahead. The other owners appear to be unworried. People in financial circles tell me the funders would not proceed without very high odds of success but their fees will be massive.
I personally fail to see how the Trust under the departed one has done any good for Swansea city Football club at all. After 18 years it is unable to invest any money into the club and it prefers to invest in a 0.15% account in Santander rather than the club Academy. That just about sums up its lack of vision and imagination.
The CV of the new board appear dynamic and progresive and they should do a rigourous review of the past 5 years and hopefully bin the legal action, which could last years cost them a lot of money and harm the club as a whole. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:41 - Aug 20 with 799 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:16 - Aug 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You have a very optimistic view on the Trusts which probably will not occur if it goes ahead. The other owners appear to be unworried. People in financial circles tell me the funders would not proceed without very high odds of success but their fees will be massive.
I personally fail to see how the Trust under the departed one has done any good for Swansea city Football club at all. After 18 years it is unable to invest any money into the club and it prefers to invest in a 0.15% account in Santander rather than the club Academy. That just about sums up its lack of vision and imagination.
The CV of the new board appear dynamic and progresive and they should do a rigourous review of the past 5 years and hopefully bin the legal action, which could last years cost them a lot of money and harm the club as a whole. |
Doesn't FFP severely limit or even prevent club owners / shareholders from investing their own funds into football clubs? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
