| Greedy Board of Directors 20:14 - Dec 11 with 9576 views | Borojack |
Would you have done the same in their shoes.
And fukced the club Trust and fans over.
Please try and answer honestly. |  |
| |  |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 17:33 - Dec 12 with 1487 views | morningstar |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 15:14 - Dec 12 by Loyal |
JVZ is many things negative, but he is 100% Swansea City. |
Wow! And in your previous post on this thread you were having another sly dig at Mel Nurse! Now that's a real "You couldn't make it up" moment! ffs!  |  |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 17:39 - Dec 12 with 1471 views | britferry |
Well when you have shares in you & your wife's name and you get caught shagging about, she files for divorce and somebody offers a million quid per share, then I think her lawyers must have had a field day. |  |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 17:39 - Dec 12 with 1467 views | perchrockjack |
I d have interviewed them at length, monitored them for months until I was satisfied they were taking the club to new levels.
Then defininate yes.
I d have personally sourced those with money to burn and eager to massage their ego by making our club and stadium miles bigger and have a unique engagement template for fans.
No problem at all with selling at a profit, it's just to whom
If our owners were to stump up big money in January it would cause much humble pie gobbling on here.
If, as seems probable they won't, then Jenkins is shown to be deficient in that area as well as recruiting new players | |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 18:09 - Dec 12 with 1442 views | Borojack |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 17:39 - Dec 12 by perchrockjack |
I d have interviewed them at length, monitored them for months until I was satisfied they were taking the club to new levels.
Then defininate yes.
I d have personally sourced those with money to burn and eager to massage their ego by making our club and stadium miles bigger and have a unique engagement template for fans.
No problem at all with selling at a profit, it's just to whom
If our owners were to stump up big money in January it would cause much humble pie gobbling on here.
If, as seems probable they won't, then Jenkins is shown to be deficient in that area as well as recruiting new players |
If they do stump up any money it will be a loan with interest added on | |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 19:16 - Dec 12 with 1404 views | NOTRAC |
There are a number of points here that seem to be overlooked. Firstly even if the Trust knew about the sale they had no power to stop it.Secondly the Trust knew the shareholders wanted to sell but had no plan B.Their stance was consistent.we won't sell our shares under any circumstances, and we will be very aggressive to anyone who wants to purchase.
They virtually forced the buyers and sellers to act in the way they did.
This suited the sellers because it meant the Trust were excluded from their share of the pot, and in reality the other shareholders have had the Trusts share. | |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 19:17 - Dec 12 with 1397 views | Loyal |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 19:16 - Dec 12 by NOTRAC |
There are a number of points here that seem to be overlooked. Firstly even if the Trust knew about the sale they had no power to stop it.Secondly the Trust knew the shareholders wanted to sell but had no plan B.Their stance was consistent.we won't sell our shares under any circumstances, and we will be very aggressive to anyone who wants to purchase.
They virtually forced the buyers and sellers to act in the way they did.
This suited the sellers because it meant the Trust were excluded from their share of the pot, and in reality the other shareholders have had the Trusts share. |
So, you agree they closed the sale unethically ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 19:27 - Dec 12 with 1386 views | NOTRAC |
Of course they were unethical and Jenkins himself untrustworthy.They also acted illegally which is why the Trust should consider legal action. | |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:04 - Dec 12 with 1344 views | Loyal |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 19:27 - Dec 12 by NOTRAC |
Of course they were unethical and Jenkins himself untrustworthy.They also acted illegally which is why the Trust should consider legal action. |
Nuff said 👠| |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:09 - Dec 12 with 1334 views | bonymine |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:04 - Dec 12 by Loyal |
Nuff said 👠|
You Greedy Bastards Get out of OUR CLUB
You turncoats you are NEVER to be trusted...... |  |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:12 - Dec 12 with 1327 views | costalotta |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 18:09 - Dec 12 by Borojack |
If they do stump up any money it will be a loan with interest added on |
If they did put up any cash does that mean other shareholders have to put in their share of th amount. For example, in the case of the Trust, do they have put up 21% of the total funds being made available. Of course the Trust are not in position to this? Perhaps that's why they won't put any of their money up but will borrow money, with interest of course.
But before they can do this wouldn't they use any cash that was already available within the club, sky money, transfer fees in (minus spent) the summer etc. What money Is there available to spend is the question?
In no way am I sticking up for the Americans in this scenario just thinking it through.
Edit: Actually not sticking up for anyone, Americans, previous owners or the Trust, trying to look at it from neutral view that's all. [Post edited 12 Dec 2016 20:17]
|  | | |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:17 - Dec 12 with 1312 views | Loyal |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:12 - Dec 12 by costalotta |
If they did put up any cash does that mean other shareholders have to put in their share of th amount. For example, in the case of the Trust, do they have put up 21% of the total funds being made available. Of course the Trust are not in position to this? Perhaps that's why they won't put any of their money up but will borrow money, with interest of course.
But before they can do this wouldn't they use any cash that was already available within the club, sky money, transfer fees in (minus spent) the summer etc. What money Is there available to spend is the question?
In no way am I sticking up for the Americans in this scenario just thinking it through.
Edit: Actually not sticking up for anyone, Americans, previous owners or the Trust, trying to look at it from neutral view that's all. [Post edited 12 Dec 2016 20:17]
|
Offer them 50.
Then it's time for the Ponderosa experience. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:19 - Dec 12 with 1306 views | costalotta |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:17 - Dec 12 by Loyal |
Offer them 50.
Then it's time for the Ponderosa experience. |
Fifty! I usually keep the vig to 75 myself, your giving it away. Hahahahaha. | | | |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:24 - Dec 12 with 1290 views | NOTRAC |
Money should be available from the £40m extra TV money. We have been told that the club lost money in 2015/16, but the profit on pre-season transfers and the cut back in wages should have put the club back on an even keel.
There are obviously players that could be sold in January, and this means there could be £50m plus available without the new owners putting in a penny.
It all comes back however to intent.If they can get away with paying far less for players and survive, then the balance of money could be extracted by them to offset the purchase cost of shares.
In my opinion therefore there is no need for them to put any money in themselves , and I am not expecting them to do that. | |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:36 - Dec 12 with 1268 views | costalotta |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 20:24 - Dec 12 by NOTRAC |
Money should be available from the £40m extra TV money. We have been told that the club lost money in 2015/16, but the profit on pre-season transfers and the cut back in wages should have put the club back on an even keel.
There are obviously players that could be sold in January, and this means there could be £50m plus available without the new owners putting in a penny.
It all comes back however to intent.If they can get away with paying far less for players and survive, then the balance of money could be extracted by them to offset the purchase cost of shares.
In my opinion therefore there is no need for them to put any money in themselves , and I am not expecting them to do that. |
If the players going out the door do not include siggy or fab and the money in for whoever is put into the fighting fund then all good. But we still need to properly replace Ash and Ayew along with strengthening the squad. | | | |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 23:14 - Dec 12 with 1193 views | TheCooler |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 19:16 - Dec 12 by NOTRAC |
There are a number of points here that seem to be overlooked. Firstly even if the Trust knew about the sale they had no power to stop it.Secondly the Trust knew the shareholders wanted to sell but had no plan B.Their stance was consistent.we won't sell our shares under any circumstances, and we will be very aggressive to anyone who wants to purchase.
They virtually forced the buyers and sellers to act in the way they did.
This suited the sellers because it meant the Trust were excluded from their share of the pot, and in reality the other shareholders have had the Trusts share. |
I agree with your view on the position the trust created in taking the stance they did, it's at that point they should have taken advice on how to best protect their interests, it might well have been better that they insisted their shareholding be sold at the same £/share value as that of the other shareholders. Worst case scenario they would have had £20million in the war chest.The shareholding they have could be worthless if the new owners get it wrong or pull another stunt to dilute the trusts shareholding to the point where it is worthless eg. Issue more shares to raise capital to fund purchase of stadium or buy players.
The Chairman might have some defence in that the Trust would not listen to reason and slammed the door on any discussion on share sale.
The issue of the A&A, whilst disappointing is a bit of a red herring as the majority of shareholders wanted them changed, Trust were in the minority. Not defending the way it was done but trying to bring some sense of reason and reality to the situation.
Sometimes you have to take it on the chin and move on. Trust still has a role to play for supporters and long term prospects for football in Swansea. They need to step back, regroup and take a fresh look at how they do what they do and crack on. Move into a positive mindset and think of the next generation of supporters. | | | |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 23:33 - Dec 12 with 1178 views | NOTRAC |
There can be no excuses for not involving the Trust .Although the Trust had made their views known regarding the sale of shares they were always entitled to change their mind.The fact that the Articles hadn't changed since 2002 means that legally the Trust should have been offered the chance to purchase the shares bought by the Americans as per the original Articles of Association.Again the probability that they would not have been able to purchase any of those shares is not material.The transactions were carried out in an illegal manner as they were not compliant with those Articles.The Trust's position has been adversely affected by the transaction.Twelve directors meetings reduced to four is already an example of that .The Trust are absolutely right in taking legal advice , and should hopefully receive monetary compensation from the sellers for what happened. | |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 23:43 - Dec 12 with 1164 views | Kilkennyjack |
Short answer is No.
Why ? Cos the success of the club was based on the goodwill of the fan base and their money in the form of the Trust.
No big success was possible without both fans and Trust.
So do the right thing and don't go behind the Trusts back and do a deal. Rather gift the Trust the 25% it needs, it is already on 21%.
Walk out a hero forever - and still rich beyond the imagination of fans who backed you 100 per cent.
Now - well instead it looks like you are a bunch of greedy knuts who grabbed the money for themselves and hung the club out to dry. I really do hope thats incorrect. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 06:00 - Dec 13 with 1114 views | Loyal |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 23:43 - Dec 12 by Kilkennyjack |
Short answer is No.
Why ? Cos the success of the club was based on the goodwill of the fan base and their money in the form of the Trust.
No big success was possible without both fans and Trust.
So do the right thing and don't go behind the Trusts back and do a deal. Rather gift the Trust the 25% it needs, it is already on 21%.
Walk out a hero forever - and still rich beyond the imagination of fans who backed you 100 per cent.
Now - well instead it looks like you are a bunch of greedy knuts who grabbed the money for themselves and hung the club out to dry. I really do hope thats incorrect. |
It would have been done and news if they had. | |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 11:18 - Dec 13 with 1066 views | cockneyswan |
I've just got round to this interesting question. My belief is that the "sellouts" (compared to most of us) were already financially very secure, so I have to say that the way they conducted the sale of thier shares, deliberately excluding the trust was a vile act and they fully deserve every bit of vitriol that comes thier way, and I would like to think that my moral compass would prevent me acting in the way the sellouts did. |  | | |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 11:25 - Dec 13 with 1060 views | monmouth |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 23:14 - Dec 12 by TheCooler |
I agree with your view on the position the trust created in taking the stance they did, it's at that point they should have taken advice on how to best protect their interests, it might well have been better that they insisted their shareholding be sold at the same £/share value as that of the other shareholders. Worst case scenario they would have had £20million in the war chest.The shareholding they have could be worthless if the new owners get it wrong or pull another stunt to dilute the trusts shareholding to the point where it is worthless eg. Issue more shares to raise capital to fund purchase of stadium or buy players.
The Chairman might have some defence in that the Trust would not listen to reason and slammed the door on any discussion on share sale.
The issue of the A&A, whilst disappointing is a bit of a red herring as the majority of shareholders wanted them changed, Trust were in the minority. Not defending the way it was done but trying to bring some sense of reason and reality to the situation.
Sometimes you have to take it on the chin and move on. Trust still has a role to play for supporters and long term prospects for football in Swansea. They need to step back, regroup and take a fresh look at how they do what they do and crack on. Move into a positive mindset and think of the next generation of supporters. |
Lol |  |
| |
| Greedy Board of Directors on 11:44 - Dec 13 with 1052 views | jack247 |
Yeah probably, it's life changing money.
I'd like to think though, that having got to a position where we were more or less established in the PL, I wouldn't have shit myself as soon as Garry started flirting with relegation and would have held out for genuine investors, still making pots of money, protecting the club and securing a legacy for myself.
Hard to say until you are in that position. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
