| NSR Bury 19:14 - Aug 4 with 9257 views | waynekerr55 |
what a mess
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| NSR Bury on 21:31 - Oct 28 with 1193 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Burnley £200m in an antiquated ground? If Swansea get to the PL the club would be worth about the same perhaps? This values the Trust at a whopping £42m. If the Trust push the button as set in motion legal action their holding would be worth £21m if sucessful. After deductions they might see £12-14m. If Swansea are in the PL by the time the case is settled they will look very stupid indeed getting a max £14m for a £42m asset.
Does anyone in the Trust know any maths? Does anyone care? The best thing that can happen is the case is dropped. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 07:23 - Oct 29 with 1105 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 21:31 - Oct 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Burnley £200m in an antiquated ground? If Swansea get to the PL the club would be worth about the same perhaps? This values the Trust at a whopping £42m. If the Trust push the button as set in motion legal action their holding would be worth £21m if sucessful. After deductions they might see £12-14m. If Swansea are in the PL by the time the case is settled they will look very stupid indeed getting a max £14m for a £42m asset.
Does anyone in the Trust know any maths? Does anyone care? The best thing that can happen is the case is dropped. |
Still on the smear campaign I see.
- I assume it's a ground Burnley actually won though?
- You may think the trust's share would be worth 42m but in reality who's likely to pay that for only 21% of a football club&have no say?
- I admire your optimism, but i don't see us being in the prem for a while.
- Do you think the sell outs are stupid then? For selling the club too cheaply? |  |
| |
| NSR Bury on 09:42 - Oct 29 with 1076 views | Fireboy2 |
Traditionally the Burnley owners are very canny, they have never spent above their means, it all comes from when they were run by bob lord.
Id suspect they wont sell their supporters down the river like our lot did as they actually put the club they love before their bank balances. |  | | |
| NSR Bury on 18:27 - Oct 29 with 1030 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 07:23 - Oct 29 by Chief |
Still on the smear campaign I see.
- I assume it's a ground Burnley actually won though?
- You may think the trust's share would be worth 42m but in reality who's likely to pay that for only 21% of a football club&have no say?
- I admire your optimism, but i don't see us being in the prem for a while.
- Do you think the sell outs are stupid then? For selling the club too cheaply? |
Why do you not see Swansea back in the PL for a while? Sixth last season 3rd as we speak. The reason is you are a member of the Trust and have very low expectations. Their brief is lower than a snakes belly. "To preserve professional football in Swansea". The club have not been out side the top 30 for very long over the last 10 years.
The Trust taking legal action is against their charter and the only benefciaries are the 3 rd party funders who will want an arm and a leg. When and where was it ever the objectives of the 'not for profit' Trust to enrich nameless agencies from outside Wales to the tune of millions?
The sell outs wheeled and dealed, Some took their £20m and invested elsewhere looking for at least 4% per year I would imagine. That would see a £3m return over the last 4 years. Not bad work, this is my language not the moribund Trust with their pathetic 0.15%. Morgan and Jenkins still have 5%, best of both worlds. At least they have some faith in the US people they sold their shares to.
The collapse of Swansea down the league uner the 'incompetent Yankees' has not happened and if Swansea get promoted they will be, by the looks of it be back in the money. Burnley £200m really? Only an idiot would sell up would sell up now. Watford Bournemouth and Norwich are not world beaters. I am one of the few obliging them to think and engage in debate. Even I was surprised at the £200m figure. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 21:35 - Oct 29 with 994 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 18:27 - Oct 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Why do you not see Swansea back in the PL for a while? Sixth last season 3rd as we speak. The reason is you are a member of the Trust and have very low expectations. Their brief is lower than a snakes belly. "To preserve professional football in Swansea". The club have not been out side the top 30 for very long over the last 10 years.
The Trust taking legal action is against their charter and the only benefciaries are the 3 rd party funders who will want an arm and a leg. When and where was it ever the objectives of the 'not for profit' Trust to enrich nameless agencies from outside Wales to the tune of millions?
The sell outs wheeled and dealed, Some took their £20m and invested elsewhere looking for at least 4% per year I would imagine. That would see a £3m return over the last 4 years. Not bad work, this is my language not the moribund Trust with their pathetic 0.15%. Morgan and Jenkins still have 5%, best of both worlds. At least they have some faith in the US people they sold their shares to.
The collapse of Swansea down the league uner the 'incompetent Yankees' has not happened and if Swansea get promoted they will be, by the looks of it be back in the money. Burnley £200m really? Only an idiot would sell up would sell up now. Watford Bournemouth and Norwich are not world beaters. I am one of the few obliging them to think and engage in debate. Even I was surprised at the £200m figure. |
- I think we'll do ok but still think we are missing a proper striker.
- im just being realistic.
- without more control what do you expect the trust to say? Can't exactly say their aim is to have a premier league club in Swansea without having much say.
- when? Since the sellouts sold out and ignored the shareholder agreement.
- I wouldn't say Jenkins has much faith in them. And if any of the sellouts don't they can't do anything about it now.
- what they've done with their money after is not relevant (although you seem to have some knowledge of what they did which is interesting). By your logic, they dropped a clanger by selling when they did.
- the debate has been had and the members voted upon it. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 12:16 - Oct 30 with 945 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 21:35 - Oct 29 by Chief |
- I think we'll do ok but still think we are missing a proper striker.
- im just being realistic.
- without more control what do you expect the trust to say? Can't exactly say their aim is to have a premier league club in Swansea without having much say.
- when? Since the sellouts sold out and ignored the shareholder agreement.
- I wouldn't say Jenkins has much faith in them. And if any of the sellouts don't they can't do anything about it now.
- what they've done with their money after is not relevant (although you seem to have some knowledge of what they did which is interesting). By your logic, they dropped a clanger by selling when they did.
- the debate has been had and the members voted upon it. |
Swansea city have a realistic chance to return to the PL in which case the club will be worth more than in 2016 simply by natural inflation. It is still a super high risk of course. Investing in the championship is a lower risk. There is money to be made for sure.
The shareholders agreement is something I have never read i only heard about. If it stops people trading their shares then I am against it. It is natural that after 15 years some shareholders wanted to move on. Why not? I have found no indication that the Trust
wanted to sell its holding 2015 -2016 or anytime before that.
Two of the old shareholders left £5m of their own money with the US owners so they clearly have faith and influence on the Board. There was speculation that the local shareholder recommended Birch for example and they have massive experience in football adminstration. I like to think they are consulted on occasions.
Selling up your holding with 100x multiple cannot ever be a mistake. Only a fool would turn down returns like this or people with no concept of money. This includes the SCST of course. The members are to blame. Being a "good bloke" is not good enough. The most sensible to do is exactly what the two remaining shareholders did. Sell and hold 5%.
There is still no confirmation that the Trust has funding. The member voted to go to court knowing they did not have sufficient funds. Yet another disasterous call. Its lose lose for them. The funders call the shots now. It is for them to decide. They may put even more onerous clauses on the Trust if they consider the case is not strong. "No win big fee." This will of course have to be paid in shares at a discounted price . | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 12:38 - Oct 31 with 895 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 12:16 - Oct 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Swansea city have a realistic chance to return to the PL in which case the club will be worth more than in 2016 simply by natural inflation. It is still a super high risk of course. Investing in the championship is a lower risk. There is money to be made for sure.
The shareholders agreement is something I have never read i only heard about. If it stops people trading their shares then I am against it. It is natural that after 15 years some shareholders wanted to move on. Why not? I have found no indication that the Trust
wanted to sell its holding 2015 -2016 or anytime before that.
Two of the old shareholders left £5m of their own money with the US owners so they clearly have faith and influence on the Board. There was speculation that the local shareholder recommended Birch for example and they have massive experience in football adminstration. I like to think they are consulted on occasions.
Selling up your holding with 100x multiple cannot ever be a mistake. Only a fool would turn down returns like this or people with no concept of money. This includes the SCST of course. The members are to blame. Being a "good bloke" is not good enough. The most sensible to do is exactly what the two remaining shareholders did. Sell and hold 5%.
There is still no confirmation that the Trust has funding. The member voted to go to court knowing they did not have sufficient funds. Yet another disasterous call. Its lose lose for them. The funders call the shots now. It is for them to decide. They may put even more onerous clauses on the Trust if they consider the case is not strong. "No win big fee." This will of course have to be paid in shares at a discounted price . |
- yea fair chance.
- I'm not sure what the shareholders agreement said either, but we do know Huw was scurrying around trying to deny its existence&then trying to ask the trust to rip it up post sale. Doesn't matter if you're against it or not - Huw and the sell weren't forced to draft / sign it but they did.
- you still don't get it do you? No one is begrudging the sell outs selling their shares in theory. They did well, put their money where their mouth was, worked hard&deserved their pay out. Sadly they went about it in an underhand(maybe illegal manner).
- well we do know Huw hasn't attended a single board meeting since he was sacked. So he can't be having much influence. He and Morgan also sold their voting rights remember.
- who would the trust sell to now? That might have been a good idea at the time, but of course the trust were excluded from discussions.
- you do realise that if the funders put unrealistic clauses in as you speculating that the trust don't have to go through with it?
You're just using another random event and twist it to have a pop at the trust. Again. Not sure why you take it so personally. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 14:05 - Oct 31 with 889 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 12:38 - Oct 31 by Chief |
- yea fair chance.
- I'm not sure what the shareholders agreement said either, but we do know Huw was scurrying around trying to deny its existence&then trying to ask the trust to rip it up post sale. Doesn't matter if you're against it or not - Huw and the sell weren't forced to draft / sign it but they did.
- you still don't get it do you? No one is begrudging the sell outs selling their shares in theory. They did well, put their money where their mouth was, worked hard&deserved their pay out. Sadly they went about it in an underhand(maybe illegal manner).
- well we do know Huw hasn't attended a single board meeting since he was sacked. So he can't be having much influence. He and Morgan also sold their voting rights remember.
- who would the trust sell to now? That might have been a good idea at the time, but of course the trust were excluded from discussions.
- you do realise that if the funders put unrealistic clauses in as you speculating that the trust don't have to go through with it?
You're just using another random event and twist it to have a pop at the trust. Again. Not sure why you take it so personally. |
The sellers accepted the terms of the US buyers and did not see them as unacceptable at all.
The US buyers offered the same terms to the Trust and they found them unacceptable.
The sellers sold their shares the Trust declined the terms and did not. It is higlhy likely that the Trust would never accepted the same terms in 2016. It is a matter of choice. The terms are either acceptabe or unaccesptable.
Based on this clear siuation, claiming the Trust has lost out from the sale going ahead seems dubious to me. The reason they did not sell was the terms were not acceptable not that they were excluded. Between March 2016 and the actual sale the Trust made no effort to be part of the sale.
Until 2017 the Trust stated quite clearly their prefered option was to hold onto their shares. Even with a mandate the board could not close a deal under pressure from legal case supporting activists. If the club returns to the PL this is the right call. The should then sell up at least half their holding ideally 75% of their holding. Who will buy them?. The US owners perhaps. Its just a matter of price. The sellers sold for £1m per % share. Burnley is valued at £2m per 1% share.
If Cooper continues his good work and the club return to the PL over the course of the case the so called sell outs could settle out of court, buy the Trusts 21% holding for the 2016 price £21m and sell it to Uncle Sam at a knockdown £25m pockectiing a cool £4m.
The valuation on Burnley changes the picture completely.
I can attend board meeting at Glaxo Sithline Beecham and I have a vote. It is not worth much at they have millions of shareholders but I can ask questions if I want to. If I was a US owner I would stay on good terms with the relevant shareholders particularly those with 16 years top level experience and a very sucessfull CV. They cannot vote but the expertise and contacts list is very useful and they have a vested interest in the club doing well. Their lack of voting rights is pretty irrelevant as the US people are united and have paid cash for their majority. [Post edited 31 Oct 2020 14:10]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| NSR Bury on 14:56 - Oct 31 with 875 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 14:05 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The sellers accepted the terms of the US buyers and did not see them as unacceptable at all.
The US buyers offered the same terms to the Trust and they found them unacceptable.
The sellers sold their shares the Trust declined the terms and did not. It is higlhy likely that the Trust would never accepted the same terms in 2016. It is a matter of choice. The terms are either acceptabe or unaccesptable.
Based on this clear siuation, claiming the Trust has lost out from the sale going ahead seems dubious to me. The reason they did not sell was the terms were not acceptable not that they were excluded. Between March 2016 and the actual sale the Trust made no effort to be part of the sale.
Until 2017 the Trust stated quite clearly their prefered option was to hold onto their shares. Even with a mandate the board could not close a deal under pressure from legal case supporting activists. If the club returns to the PL this is the right call. The should then sell up at least half their holding ideally 75% of their holding. Who will buy them?. The US owners perhaps. Its just a matter of price. The sellers sold for £1m per % share. Burnley is valued at £2m per 1% share.
If Cooper continues his good work and the club return to the PL over the course of the case the so called sell outs could settle out of court, buy the Trusts 21% holding for the 2016 price £21m and sell it to Uncle Sam at a knockdown £25m pockectiing a cool £4m.
The valuation on Burnley changes the picture completely.
I can attend board meeting at Glaxo Sithline Beecham and I have a vote. It is not worth much at they have millions of shareholders but I can ask questions if I want to. If I was a US owner I would stay on good terms with the relevant shareholders particularly those with 16 years top level experience and a very sucessfull CV. They cannot vote but the expertise and contacts list is very useful and they have a vested interest in the club doing well. Their lack of voting rights is pretty irrelevant as the US people are united and have paid cash for their majority. [Post edited 31 Oct 2020 14:10]
|
These first few paragraph are just lies.
- If the trust were approached by the Americans to purchase their shares under the same terms as what the sell outs received, why would the trust go through expense&trouble of going through the courts to get the same outcome?
- the only the offer the Americans have made to buy the trusts shares was rescinded - so why would they when they can just issue new shares at an unknown cost as is what could happen with Silverstein?
- the trust have also been involved for 16 years but the track record of consulting them hasn't been great has it. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 16:54 - Oct 31 with 863 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 14:56 - Oct 31 by Chief |
These first few paragraph are just lies.
- If the trust were approached by the Americans to purchase their shares under the same terms as what the sell outs received, why would the trust go through expense&trouble of going through the courts to get the same outcome?
- the only the offer the Americans have made to buy the trusts shares was rescinded - so why would they when they can just issue new shares at an unknown cost as is what could happen with Silverstein?
- the trust have also been involved for 16 years but the track record of consulting them hasn't been great has it. |
Burnley are reported to be worth £200m in the Premier League. Swansea city in a bigger city with a potentially much bigger fan base should therefore be worth at least the same or more in the Premier league. Swansea at this moment are second and playing well.
Taking legal action makes no sense (for the Trust) as it will return around £14m for an asset potentially worth £40m + based on the Burnley valuation. Legal action is however very good for the fiunders of legal action who can claim an arm and a leg for not very much work.
Judgng from the accounts £150,000 has already been paid out. They will probably want all sorts of guarentees including a juicy fee for any out of court settlement.
The US people are only obligated to deal with the trust's Board representative and get on just dandy with him as far as i know. He has not indivcated otherwise and Winter and Birch before him too. They have no reason to bother with the Trust regarding buying their shares as they probably have found them very difficult to deal with in the past. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 17:24 - Oct 31 with 859 views | chad |
| NSR Bury on 16:54 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Burnley are reported to be worth £200m in the Premier League. Swansea city in a bigger city with a potentially much bigger fan base should therefore be worth at least the same or more in the Premier league. Swansea at this moment are second and playing well.
Taking legal action makes no sense (for the Trust) as it will return around £14m for an asset potentially worth £40m + based on the Burnley valuation. Legal action is however very good for the fiunders of legal action who can claim an arm and a leg for not very much work.
Judgng from the accounts £150,000 has already been paid out. They will probably want all sorts of guarentees including a juicy fee for any out of court settlement.
The US people are only obligated to deal with the trust's Board representative and get on just dandy with him as far as i know. He has not indivcated otherwise and Winter and Birch before him too. They have no reason to bother with the Trust regarding buying their shares as they probably have found them very difficult to deal with in the past. |
Res Love, You do not seem to be responding to the lies you appear to be telling, that you were challenged on.
Of course far from the first time you have made things up
If keeping the shares is such a good idea I am surprised the new majority owners did not want to snap them up when they had the opportunity. Unlike us they would not be stuck with shares that gave them virtually no power, locked into an organisation we are deprived of any meaningful say in because of lies and underhand behaviour.
Of course your opinion on the shareholder agreement is no more valid than anyone else’s. What mattered is that it existed and had been used in the past. Although Jason’s taped contradictory statements on this are v.interesting, especially given the Trust say they sent a copy to them of this document, that they apparently did not know about, but still somehow asked for a copy of 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ |  | | |
| NSR Bury on 17:54 - Oct 31 with 852 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 16:54 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Burnley are reported to be worth £200m in the Premier League. Swansea city in a bigger city with a potentially much bigger fan base should therefore be worth at least the same or more in the Premier league. Swansea at this moment are second and playing well.
Taking legal action makes no sense (for the Trust) as it will return around £14m for an asset potentially worth £40m + based on the Burnley valuation. Legal action is however very good for the fiunders of legal action who can claim an arm and a leg for not very much work.
Judgng from the accounts £150,000 has already been paid out. They will probably want all sorts of guarentees including a juicy fee for any out of court settlement.
The US people are only obligated to deal with the trust's Board representative and get on just dandy with him as far as i know. He has not indivcated otherwise and Winter and Birch before him too. They have no reason to bother with the Trust regarding buying their shares as they probably have found them very difficult to deal with in the past. |
- Right well Burnleys deal hasn't gone through anyway. So this £200mill figure you are using as a stick to beat the trust with hasn't even materialised yet.
- 14mill now!? What figure will you pick out of the air next. I bet if the trust delayed legal action based on your logic that their shares would be worth more (but with no obvious buyer for them) in the event of promotion, you'd twist it that legal proceedings were taking too long (which you've made snide remarks about in the past).
- who knows what the funders want? Why anything particularly 'juicy'? An independent QC has already stated they have a good case.
- Just now you were saying the Americans may want to buy the trusts shares if we got promoted - now you're saying they don't want to bother with them? Are you confused? | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 17:59 - Oct 31 with 852 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 17:24 - Oct 31 by chad |
Res Love, You do not seem to be responding to the lies you appear to be telling, that you were challenged on.
Of course far from the first time you have made things up
If keeping the shares is such a good idea I am surprised the new majority owners did not want to snap them up when they had the opportunity. Unlike us they would not be stuck with shares that gave them virtually no power, locked into an organisation we are deprived of any meaningful say in because of lies and underhand behaviour.
Of course your opinion on the shareholder agreement is no more valid than anyone else’s. What mattered is that it existed and had been used in the past. Although Jason’s taped contradictory statements on this are v.interesting, especially given the Trust say they sent a copy to them of this document, that they apparently did not know about, but still somehow asked for a copy of 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ |
My views are based on what I have read and statement made by both sides. A sale can only be made if both sides want to sell. It appears to me likely that there was no sale primarily because the Trust people did not want to sell. I suspect proving the Trust was keen on selling will be very hard sell in court from what I can see.
The US people did want to buy the shares and entered into talks to buy them. After 4 months they gave up citing chaos within the ranks of the Trust. The Trust lost two chairmen during the talks from resignations. One who did not like the terms on offer and another citing online abuse. No progress was being made.
You will argue of course that the teams poor form was the reason. The buyer gave his reasons and who are we to argue them.
The Trusts shares are far from worthless. They could be worth £40m if the club returns to the PL. They are worthless if the people holding them are unable to trade of course. The Trust were already isolated after 2015 as all the other shareholders wanted to sell some or all of their shares. Selling their shares is also possible if you are on friendly terms with a potential buyer. Threatenening them with legal action and issuing surly statements does not help.
The Trust need a clean break from the former disastrous regime get rid of the lawyers and start working for Swansea city in my opionin. The losers anticipated a fall down the leagues and economic collapse. Legal action represents "getting what you can from a sinking ship". The club is anything but. Another bad call by people who deneragrte the people that gave them potential clout and cash to play with, if only they were brave enough. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 19:11 - Oct 31 with 838 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 17:59 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
My views are based on what I have read and statement made by both sides. A sale can only be made if both sides want to sell. It appears to me likely that there was no sale primarily because the Trust people did not want to sell. I suspect proving the Trust was keen on selling will be very hard sell in court from what I can see.
The US people did want to buy the shares and entered into talks to buy them. After 4 months they gave up citing chaos within the ranks of the Trust. The Trust lost two chairmen during the talks from resignations. One who did not like the terms on offer and another citing online abuse. No progress was being made.
You will argue of course that the teams poor form was the reason. The buyer gave his reasons and who are we to argue them.
The Trusts shares are far from worthless. They could be worth £40m if the club returns to the PL. They are worthless if the people holding them are unable to trade of course. The Trust were already isolated after 2015 as all the other shareholders wanted to sell some or all of their shares. Selling their shares is also possible if you are on friendly terms with a potential buyer. Threatenening them with legal action and issuing surly statements does not help.
The Trust need a clean break from the former disastrous regime get rid of the lawyers and start working for Swansea city in my opionin. The losers anticipated a fall down the leagues and economic collapse. Legal action represents "getting what you can from a sinking ship". The club is anything but. Another bad call by people who deneragrte the people that gave them potential clout and cash to play with, if only they were brave enough. |
- The whole crux of the case is that the trust were excluded from the sale. Why wouldn't they have been keen to sell? If they'd been privy to the terms, they'd have been able to see that they'd be in the position they are in now. Your flow on that argument makes no sense.
- They made an offer to buy shares well after the initial sale after legal action was threatened by the trust. There's no indication what terms they offered but obviously not as good as what the sell outs got. The Americans then rescinded this offer. You're account as usual is extremely disingenuous.
- teams poor form? What are you on about?
- 'if we get promoted' then back to talking about another clubs deal in a different situation which hadn't gone through. Of course the trust have no buyer in sight. Burnley may.
- they aren't a potential buyer. Why would they buy them? If they were to want to, why not do it now? Using your logic there's money to be made while we're in this division. It would also save the Americans hassle and fees.
- why do you think there isn't a break with the 'previous regime'? If there is though, doesn't mean they can disregard the mandate they have for legal action.
- anyway, just now you were saying Winter's working with them. So what's your issue? | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 20:38 - Oct 31 with 822 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 17:54 - Oct 31 by Chief |
- Right well Burnleys deal hasn't gone through anyway. So this £200mill figure you are using as a stick to beat the trust with hasn't even materialised yet.
- 14mill now!? What figure will you pick out of the air next. I bet if the trust delayed legal action based on your logic that their shares would be worth more (but with no obvious buyer for them) in the event of promotion, you'd twist it that legal proceedings were taking too long (which you've made snide remarks about in the past).
- who knows what the funders want? Why anything particularly 'juicy'? An independent QC has already stated they have a good case.
- Just now you were saying the Americans may want to buy the trusts shares if we got promoted - now you're saying they don't want to bother with them? Are you confused? |
I am not using a stick to beat the Trust with anything. I am questioning their logic. No one else has the gumption to do this oddly. Why is this? I put it down to a lack of confidence and fear of rocking the boat. There are 1000 or so members after all, are they all humble yes men? (and women)
The BBC says Burnely are considering a £200m offer. This if you assume Swansea is at least as big as Burnley this values the Swansea Trusts 21% share as £42m if (and its a big if) Swansea return to the PL. The signs are good for now at least.
I ask the question why do the members want out of the club now for the price of the club in 2016? This is based on three falsehoods
a) The new US owners are incompetant and are looking for a get out.
b) The club is on a downward spiral
c) The legal cost will be reasonable
All these assumptions are false. The legal action is a desperate reaction to relegation and an attempt to grab best value from a sinking ship. Swansea is not a sinking ship. The Trust would be remiss if they did not reconsider the options.
The US people have always wanted the Trust s shares at the right price and made a good offer in 2017. They will however not want to waste their time dealing with people who are not negicoiating in good faith. 4 months was wasted with costs that could not be recovered. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 02:53 - Nov 1 with 797 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 20:38 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am not using a stick to beat the Trust with anything. I am questioning their logic. No one else has the gumption to do this oddly. Why is this? I put it down to a lack of confidence and fear of rocking the boat. There are 1000 or so members after all, are they all humble yes men? (and women)
The BBC says Burnely are considering a £200m offer. This if you assume Swansea is at least as big as Burnley this values the Swansea Trusts 21% share as £42m if (and its a big if) Swansea return to the PL. The signs are good for now at least.
I ask the question why do the members want out of the club now for the price of the club in 2016? This is based on three falsehoods
a) The new US owners are incompetant and are looking for a get out.
b) The club is on a downward spiral
c) The legal cost will be reasonable
All these assumptions are false. The legal action is a desperate reaction to relegation and an attempt to grab best value from a sinking ship. Swansea is not a sinking ship. The Trust would be remiss if they did not reconsider the options.
The US people have always wanted the Trust s shares at the right price and made a good offer in 2017. They will however not want to waste their time dealing with people who are not negicoiating in good faith. 4 months was wasted with costs that could not be recovered. |
- You are absolutely using this virtually hypothetical situation to beat the trust with.
- not many are rocking the boat because there's a mandate to proceed for a start. If there are dissenting voices, they are credible ones who don't use every random event to try and slander the trust.
- back to the Burnley hypothetical. They own their stadium remember. And are in the Premier league. And actually have an offer on the table (apparently).
- these falsehoods profiled are basically invented in your head. The Americans in my eyes aren't too bad. We could do worse&when it comes time for our American friends to retreat back across the Atlantic, what happens then? They've already been complicit in keeping shareholders out of one sale, why wouldn't they do it again? You've also failed to address the fact that 2016 prices / worth are more than what it is now.
- how do you know it was a 'good offer'?
- you're showing you're lack of balance here again see - why do you automatically default to the trust not negotiating in 'good faith'?
It would be good if you could address the points I make directly like I do to the points you make. That's what a proper debate is. Leave out the random tangents, slurs and lies through please. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 15:02 - Nov 1 with 744 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 02:53 - Nov 1 by Chief |
- You are absolutely using this virtually hypothetical situation to beat the trust with.
- not many are rocking the boat because there's a mandate to proceed for a start. If there are dissenting voices, they are credible ones who don't use every random event to try and slander the trust.
- back to the Burnley hypothetical. They own their stadium remember. And are in the Premier league. And actually have an offer on the table (apparently).
- these falsehoods profiled are basically invented in your head. The Americans in my eyes aren't too bad. We could do worse&when it comes time for our American friends to retreat back across the Atlantic, what happens then? They've already been complicit in keeping shareholders out of one sale, why wouldn't they do it again? You've also failed to address the fact that 2016 prices / worth are more than what it is now.
- how do you know it was a 'good offer'?
- you're showing you're lack of balance here again see - why do you automatically default to the trust not negotiating in 'good faith'?
It would be good if you could address the points I make directly like I do to the points you make. That's what a proper debate is. Leave out the random tangents, slurs and lies through please. |
Simple question. Why is the Trust planning on suing the club owners for around £12-14m after fees and tax when the premier league valuation could have risen to £42m since 2016.? Arab people seem to want to get invloved these days. Swansea sit 2nd in the league.
The mandate is 2-3 years old progess is grindingly slow and circumstances have changed.
a) The US owners are not a disaster the club is not Sunderland.
b) A return to the PL is a possiblity.
c) The old chairman has gone.
d) The club could be worth double the 2016 price if the club returns to the PL.
e) If the club returns to the PL the selling shareholders will happily buy back the Trusts share out of court with the Trust still having to pay its funders. (ouch!)
f) Inflation kills and the Trust do not appear to understand this concept.
There are no discerning voices because no one really cares that much it seems to me. I get very little support on here. The Trust model does not work with such low expectations.
Swansea City control the Liberty stadium for 20 years or so, on commercial terms or so and can redeveolp it use it for concerts etc. A new buyer would continue with these benefits .
I would fully expect the US people to exclude the Trust out of all talks other than those required by law. From what I can see they are very awkward to deal with and unable to make decsions. The operate at a mind numbingly slow pace not suitble for modern business practices.
The value of the club is proably around £40m or so. Derby county is looking to get £50m for their club I read somewhere. This Derby price values the Trust at £10.5m. Legal action could result in cash of as low as £12m after costs and tax compared to a £42m valuation if the club got back to the PL. Starting legal action could prove a very dumb move if the club can return to the PL. Gain £1.5m lose the possiblity of a £21m mark up. (before tax).
The US people offered the Trust the same deal as that offered to the sell out according to the US people. The leaving Chairman also stated the terms were comparable and would be put to the members for consideration anyway. Drag on and tag on terms appeared to be the sticking point from what i can recall reading. They wanted to drag along the Trusts shares in the event of a 100% buy out offer.
They have positive and negative aspects. If the Trust has friendly relations with the US owner they would most probably be treated with respect. It a mutual understanding. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 15:36 - Nov 1 with 733 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 15:02 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Simple question. Why is the Trust planning on suing the club owners for around £12-14m after fees and tax when the premier league valuation could have risen to £42m since 2016.? Arab people seem to want to get invloved these days. Swansea sit 2nd in the league.
The mandate is 2-3 years old progess is grindingly slow and circumstances have changed.
a) The US owners are not a disaster the club is not Sunderland.
b) A return to the PL is a possiblity.
c) The old chairman has gone.
d) The club could be worth double the 2016 price if the club returns to the PL.
e) If the club returns to the PL the selling shareholders will happily buy back the Trusts share out of court with the Trust still having to pay its funders. (ouch!)
f) Inflation kills and the Trust do not appear to understand this concept.
There are no discerning voices because no one really cares that much it seems to me. I get very little support on here. The Trust model does not work with such low expectations.
Swansea City control the Liberty stadium for 20 years or so, on commercial terms or so and can redeveolp it use it for concerts etc. A new buyer would continue with these benefits .
I would fully expect the US people to exclude the Trust out of all talks other than those required by law. From what I can see they are very awkward to deal with and unable to make decsions. The operate at a mind numbingly slow pace not suitble for modern business practices.
The value of the club is proably around £40m or so. Derby county is looking to get £50m for their club I read somewhere. This Derby price values the Trust at £10.5m. Legal action could result in cash of as low as £12m after costs and tax compared to a £42m valuation if the club got back to the PL. Starting legal action could prove a very dumb move if the club can return to the PL. Gain £1.5m lose the possiblity of a £21m mark up. (before tax).
The US people offered the Trust the same deal as that offered to the sell out according to the US people. The leaving Chairman also stated the terms were comparable and would be put to the members for consideration anyway. Drag on and tag on terms appeared to be the sticking point from what i can recall reading. They wanted to drag along the Trusts shares in the event of a 100% buy out offer.
They have positive and negative aspects. If the Trust has friendly relations with the US owner they would most probably be treated with respect. It a mutual understanding. |
- as it stands the valuation hasn't risen. The Americans can't be made to pay more than what they paid the sell outs.
- early days in the season - we haven't played any of the favourites yet.
- Arabs or whoever, they don't currently exist. They're a figment of your imagination. There are no parties bidding for the trusts shares.
- as above, the circumstances haven't changed. Progress is admittedly slow but it is what it is. These things can't be rushed.
- never said they were.
- agreed.
- agreed.
- IF - debatable.
- Have the Americans stated they would do that? Don't think so.
- you'll have to elaborate on the inflation thing, don't see its relevance.
- you get very little support because everyone thinks you have a vested interest in the trust not proceeding. You make some valid points but you can't help the snide remarks, unwarranted criticism, lack of balance and weaponising even the most tenuously linked event against the trust. Its obvious some people care because there's usually quite a few eager to combat your claims.
- Can we redevelop the stadium? Would it be wise to do so on a property we do not own?
- yea I expect them to exclude the trust too - they have form for doing just that and that's why we are in this position.
- full of ifs again in that paragraph (and also slurs - just can't help yourself). Again a different club in a different situation to us.
- If the terms were the same / comparable why not offer them again? If would save the Americans hassle and legal fees. If the trust were offered it that there's no logical explanation as to why they wouldn't accept it. You're also failing to explain that the offer was rescinded.
- indeed, didn't exactly get off to good footing with the Americans openly admitting that they deliberately hid negotiations from the trust is it. Again you are incapable of seeing this from the trusts point of view. Again defaulting the Americans with no real reason to do so (unless of course there are other motives at play).
- | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 16:46 - Nov 1 with 719 views | chad |
| NSR Bury on 15:02 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Simple question. Why is the Trust planning on suing the club owners for around £12-14m after fees and tax when the premier league valuation could have risen to £42m since 2016.? Arab people seem to want to get invloved these days. Swansea sit 2nd in the league.
The mandate is 2-3 years old progess is grindingly slow and circumstances have changed.
a) The US owners are not a disaster the club is not Sunderland.
b) A return to the PL is a possiblity.
c) The old chairman has gone.
d) The club could be worth double the 2016 price if the club returns to the PL.
e) If the club returns to the PL the selling shareholders will happily buy back the Trusts share out of court with the Trust still having to pay its funders. (ouch!)
f) Inflation kills and the Trust do not appear to understand this concept.
There are no discerning voices because no one really cares that much it seems to me. I get very little support on here. The Trust model does not work with such low expectations.
Swansea City control the Liberty stadium for 20 years or so, on commercial terms or so and can redeveolp it use it for concerts etc. A new buyer would continue with these benefits .
I would fully expect the US people to exclude the Trust out of all talks other than those required by law. From what I can see they are very awkward to deal with and unable to make decsions. The operate at a mind numbingly slow pace not suitble for modern business practices.
The value of the club is proably around £40m or so. Derby county is looking to get £50m for their club I read somewhere. This Derby price values the Trust at £10.5m. Legal action could result in cash of as low as £12m after costs and tax compared to a £42m valuation if the club got back to the PL. Starting legal action could prove a very dumb move if the club can return to the PL. Gain £1.5m lose the possiblity of a £21m mark up. (before tax).
The US people offered the Trust the same deal as that offered to the sell out according to the US people. The leaving Chairman also stated the terms were comparable and would be put to the members for consideration anyway. Drag on and tag on terms appeared to be the sticking point from what i can recall reading. They wanted to drag along the Trusts shares in the event of a 100% buy out offer.
They have positive and negative aspects. If the Trust has friendly relations with the US owner they would most probably be treated with respect. It a mutual understanding. |
You really should stop plucking figures out of the air. | | | |
| NSR Bury on 17:14 - Nov 1 with 710 views | chad |
| NSR Bury on 20:38 - Oct 31 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am not using a stick to beat the Trust with anything. I am questioning their logic. No one else has the gumption to do this oddly. Why is this? I put it down to a lack of confidence and fear of rocking the boat. There are 1000 or so members after all, are they all humble yes men? (and women)
The BBC says Burnely are considering a £200m offer. This if you assume Swansea is at least as big as Burnley this values the Swansea Trusts 21% share as £42m if (and its a big if) Swansea return to the PL. The signs are good for now at least.
I ask the question why do the members want out of the club now for the price of the club in 2016? This is based on three falsehoods
a) The new US owners are incompetant and are looking for a get out.
b) The club is on a downward spiral
c) The legal cost will be reasonable
All these assumptions are false. The legal action is a desperate reaction to relegation and an attempt to grab best value from a sinking ship. Swansea is not a sinking ship. The Trust would be remiss if they did not reconsider the options.
The US people have always wanted the Trust s shares at the right price and made a good offer in 2017. They will however not want to waste their time dealing with people who are not negicoiating in good faith. 4 months was wasted with costs that could not be recovered. |
Much of your posting is based on endlessly repeating falsehoods
I fear it is you that do not understand
The legal action is based on the behaviour during and after the sale and the prejudiced position it put the Trust in.
You may speculate all you wish. But a QC experienced in such cases and relevant case law had judged our case to be strong. Understand they do not put their considerable reputations on the line lightly
Everything else you keep rambling on about is just irrelevant. The legal action is not a threat it is an actuality. Get used to it. However I can understand how the perpetrators, (whose behaviour forced this action), and their supporters, would try anything they could to escape it, however desperate and ineffectual. | | | |
| NSR Bury on 19:41 - Nov 1 with 684 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 17:14 - Nov 1 by chad |
Much of your posting is based on endlessly repeating falsehoods
I fear it is you that do not understand
The legal action is based on the behaviour during and after the sale and the prejudiced position it put the Trust in.
You may speculate all you wish. But a QC experienced in such cases and relevant case law had judged our case to be strong. Understand they do not put their considerable reputations on the line lightly
Everything else you keep rambling on about is just irrelevant. The legal action is not a threat it is an actuality. Get used to it. However I can understand how the perpetrators, (whose behaviour forced this action), and their supporters, would try anything they could to escape it, however desperate and ineffectual. |
The legal action is far from an actuality in fact I think it is now unlikely. You may have noticed the Trust statement today. No mention of it. The QC assessement was based on information given to him by the Trust. The funders will look into the matter in more detail. Like I said, the dash for legal action was based on the idea Swansea city was a sinking ship holed and listing, and they ran for the life rafts with the missus's jewelry.
Legal action is actually just a bad idea. If Cooper does well it will further improve the wealth of those that sold and impoverish the Trust. The exact opposite of what the members voted for. I am articuating those ideas. They are worth exploring. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 20:32 - Nov 1 with 662 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 19:41 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The legal action is far from an actuality in fact I think it is now unlikely. You may have noticed the Trust statement today. No mention of it. The QC assessement was based on information given to him by the Trust. The funders will look into the matter in more detail. Like I said, the dash for legal action was based on the idea Swansea city was a sinking ship holed and listing, and they ran for the life rafts with the missus's jewelry.
Legal action is actually just a bad idea. If Cooper does well it will further improve the wealth of those that sold and impoverish the Trust. The exact opposite of what the members voted for. I am articuating those ideas. They are worth exploring. |
- Last trust update I saw said that the legal documentation was all in place and negotiations with the funds likely to be concluded in next few weeks.
- That maybe your interpretation of why it's occurring& who knows that may happen in future. Last year of parachute payments this season, if we don't go up who knows what'll happen. Some of us are looking longer term than what you're claiming.
- How would Cooper doing well impoverish the trust!? | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 20:53 - Nov 1 with 656 views | Garyjack |
| NSR Bury on 20:32 - Nov 1 by Chief |
- Last trust update I saw said that the legal documentation was all in place and negotiations with the funds likely to be concluded in next few weeks.
- That maybe your interpretation of why it's occurring& who knows that may happen in future. Last year of parachute payments this season, if we don't go up who knows what'll happen. Some of us are looking longer term than what you're claiming.
- How would Cooper doing well impoverish the trust!? |
I believe in his confused state that he thinks if the trust win in any legal action case and receive his £12-£14m, then if the club gain promotion the Trusts share value would have increased to his magical £42m. Meaning they would have lost out financially by taking legal action.
However, he does seem to be implying that the trusts shares are something that can be bought and sold on the stock market the way he talks about their value, when the reality is that it matters not a jot what the value of the club is, or the paper value of the Trust shares, they will always be rendered worthless due to the actions of the sell outs and yanks.
And in the words of the great Oliver Cromwell, "It is upon that issue that this war is being fought". |  | | |
| NSR Bury on 21:28 - Nov 1 with 624 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 20:53 - Nov 1 by Garyjack |
I believe in his confused state that he thinks if the trust win in any legal action case and receive his £12-£14m, then if the club gain promotion the Trusts share value would have increased to his magical £42m. Meaning they would have lost out financially by taking legal action.
However, he does seem to be implying that the trusts shares are something that can be bought and sold on the stock market the way he talks about their value, when the reality is that it matters not a jot what the value of the club is, or the paper value of the Trust shares, they will always be rendered worthless due to the actions of the sell outs and yanks.
And in the words of the great Oliver Cromwell, "It is upon that issue that this war is being fought". |
Gary is perpetuating a myth. The value of the shares are not, and never have been worthless. People do not buy shares to enable them to vote or run the company they own shares in. They are no different to 2009-2010. It is true the Trust are isolated but that is their fault. They have taken a confrontational position. This myth has been perpetuated by manipulative people to win votes for legal action.
The Trust never had any influence on the decisions made at Swansea city. it was entirely down to the selling directors I suspect. They were along for the ride.
The Trust holding is worth £8.4m in the championship up to £10.5m based on a Derby County equivilent. If Burnley is worth the quoted £200m given in the BBC the Trusts holding is worth arund £42m in the Premier league. Gary and his chums argue there is no buyers for Premier league clubs. Be sure if they are the US owners will find them if a good profit is to be made. Burnley are under the spot light , Southampton were bought by Chinese recently, WBA similarly Everton bought by an Egyptian, Fulham US owned in the last 5 years Wolves recently purchased. Derby under consideration. The list goes on. Be clear the idea the Trust shares are worthless is laughable. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 21:34 - Nov 1 with 619 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 20:53 - Nov 1 by Garyjack |
I believe in his confused state that he thinks if the trust win in any legal action case and receive his £12-£14m, then if the club gain promotion the Trusts share value would have increased to his magical £42m. Meaning they would have lost out financially by taking legal action.
However, he does seem to be implying that the trusts shares are something that can be bought and sold on the stock market the way he talks about their value, when the reality is that it matters not a jot what the value of the club is, or the paper value of the Trust shares, they will always be rendered worthless due to the actions of the sell outs and yanks.
And in the words of the great Oliver Cromwell, "It is upon that issue that this war is being fought". |
Indeed.
However, this is the person that told us:
"Selling up your holding with 100x multiple cannot ever be a mistake"
You've got to laugh at the hypocracy. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
