| An objective view on business ownership 20:18 - Sep 5 with 19424 views | jackanuck |
OK. Here goes. I've had this user ID for years but have never posted. I used to be on JackArmy years ago. I used to read and post all of the time but for the last few years I come on to the forums a lot less because in my opinion, it's gone really down hill.
I'm a lifelong fan of the club, mid thirties, expat and never owned a season ticket at the Vetch because I couldn't afford it. I'd go to most home games - 2/3 I'd say and always sat in the East Stand with my dad or go on the North Bank with my friends or if I was on my own. I moved away the year we went in to the Liberty and have been back to watch 1-2 games a year most seasons since then. I listened to every game on the radio through PalTalk after I left, until we hit the big time. I was really devastated when we were going to get relegated because I was worried I wouldn't be able to watch the Swans anymore. As it's turned out, The Championship seems to be hitting the big time too and so far I haven't missed a single game on TV/Internet. All in all, I'm a pretty happy chappy.
Why have I come back on the forum? It really irks me that our fans are being divided by the subject of who owns our club. I know it's not something I can fix with some silly little post on the forum, but for my own therapy, I just have to get this out there for a few people to read. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I don't expect I'll change anyones thoughts, but theres a few things I want to get off my chest in the hope that we can bind together as a fan base. A lot of what I read (the majority) makes out that everything is black or white. Like most things in life, the situation at Swansea City is far from left or right, but aptly somewhere in the middle.
First of all, I've been hearing for years and years from every premier league broadcast (like a lot of us) the Swansea success story. THE FANS OWN THE CLUB. This is not technically true. (It's a bit like saying I own Apple Inc. because I have some shares) It would have been true to say that the Swansea Supporters Trust owns a non-majority share of the club. Regardless, I've always been really proud of this and I would let the inaccurate statements made by TV pundits slide. However, I think there is a large camp of fans on this forum that do not understand when they read things like "the board sold our club...." This isn't true, the board sold their majority shares in our club.They earned those shares with money and by dedicating a large part of their lives to the success of the club for the past 15 years. Our trust still owns their minority shares. It's as factually true as it ever was that our fans (The Swansea City Supporters Trust) still own the club. I think this is a really valuable thing and I hope that our trust never dilutes or gives away it's shares in our club. It is my hope that in the future, there will be no one entity (other than the Trust) with a greater than 50% share in our club and while a million miles away from that scenario at the moment, I'd love to see the Trust get in to the drivers seat one day.
As someone who is frustrated that are club is in the majority ownership of strangers, I ask my self this question. Why did the trust not make moves to purchase shares from the rest of the board of directors / owners so that the Fans could own the majority share? You should ask this question too because it trumps all of your other questions. If you want the fans to won the club, they need to pay for it. They can't expect it to just be handed to them in a sweet heart deal by investors (Jenkins et al) who put their money at risk all those years ago.
I realize the answer to this question could be multi-faceted. For example, maybe they wanted to but couldn't afford it. Maybe they just didn't want to because they didn't want the risk exposure. Regardless of the reasons, it is important to understand accountability and for me, if we are to ask the question about why our club is in the hands of strangers, the obvious answer is - It's because the fans did not purchase the shares required to own the majority of the club. There may be incredibly good reasons for why the trust didn't do what was necessary, but it doesn't alter the fact that the failure of the trust to acquire 51% total shares is why the club was in a position to sold to foreigners.
My second blurb is about the basics of business. I am a business owner. I have founded, raised debt and equity finances and exited businesses within the past 5 years and know my way around East Coast VC's (Venture Capitalists) I'm sure i'm not alone and am among a small minority here who understand these 'ventures'
It really pisses me off when I read one liners on here from people who are Anti Ownership, Anti Board who deem everyone with an objective opinion to have their head up the arse's of Jenkins/Levein/Kaplan etc. It's simply not true. The difference between me and many of those posters is that I have a moral (and legal) compass to not fabricate bull-shit about the owners to make it appear that they are thieves and people who are taking advantage of the club. Yes, the purpose of most businesses is to make money to pay their annual burn and in most cases, to make a profit. That doesn't automatically make all owners bad. It's my opinion that this ownership group made a few big mistakes that they've since confessed too. With the exception of Jenkins, I don't think they are more qualified than anyone else to get the club back to where it needs to be, but it's obvious to anyone who has ever been involved with buying and/or selling they aren't going to go anywhere. Why?
VALUATION. So I can make sure I've expressed myself and how important this is, I'm going to say it a few more times! VALUATION VALUATION VALUATION!!!!
If you know what Valuation is, feel free to check out of this thread now. If you don't, this is possibly the missing link to answer to all of your uncertainties about what is happening and what's about to happen, probably for the next 5 years.
I'll start with a basic and made up case study.
If a theme park has 10 rides and 50,000 annual visitors and generates 1 million pounds per year with a NET Profit of around $200,000 per year, you could argue it's worth (has a valuation of) about 1 million pounds as an investment to a new buyer. That buyer would make the money back on their investment in approximately 5 years. The original owner could cash out now, or he could do a lot of work and invest more capital to make his investment worth more and cash our later. He could also give away % of his ownership and a fraction of the million pound so he can keep some skin in the game.
Our owners intention (in my opinion) is to increase the overall valuation of Swansea City and then sell the club on. I am explaining this in such simple terms because there are people on the forum who say things like, "why would they be here if not to rip the beating heart out of the club and steal all of the money" NO! If they did that, the club would be completely worthless. They would never in an entire decade be able to rip out enough money to cover their original investment from this club. The only way for them to profit is to improve the club on and off the field and sell it again for a higher price. The Club's current Valuation is probably 30 pennies on the poind to where it is if we're in the premier league. When selling it in the future, all the clubs negative attributes will be attached to the due-diligence that a buyer will do including debt, bloated salaries, deal fees etc. I am absolutely sure that they do (YEs said DO!) take a salary from the club or in the very least, have an attachment to deal fees but that is absolutely normal among ownership / venture capitalists.
Right now, there's a few die hard board-haters doing calculations on players sales to prove that they've already made their money back. All I can say is, this is futile. You don't have the books. Any money they are currently taking out of the club would be trivial 'icing on the cake" deal fee amounts and wouldn't in any scale contribute to what you currently see as trying to claw back their investment in our club by "bringing down the house" They are simply bringing our clubs burn rate inline with our annual revenue forecast now that we've lost a huge amount of revenue. If this concept is lost on you, all I can ask you to do is enrol in a very basic night school or internet course on business management. No different to running your own household, your income has to be equal or greater than your outgoings, or else your fiscal value is less than zero.
It pisses me off immensely that these American's didn't understand the history and culture that has been built within our club, especially during the past 15 years. They admitted as much in that BBC article the other day. It kills me that they were ignorant, bold and naive enough to that Idiot of an American Manager, Bradley, in charge of us. I'm so frustrated that we took big gambles on player signings in the last couple of years that haven't worked out. I do believe we are on the right track, they've learned from their mistakes and have placed trust in the right people to get the playing side of the club back on track. However, I'm also smart enough to know that as fans, we are having to live with their mistakes. Overall I think they are stupid idiots and pretty typical of the east coast VC's I've interacted with in the past. However, I don't think they are doing anything dishonest and I don't think they are going to continue to purposefully ruin our club. If they are smart, they'll open up a good channel of communication with the supporters trust and see them as the future, rightful owners of a majority stockholding in Swansea City Football Club, potentially helping the trust to acquire the loans it might need to reach the clubs future valuation, if we can cement ourselves once again as a top half premier league side with a good academy.
Overall, I just want our fans to be less divided. I'm open to constructive criticism on my thoughts and most of all, I want to be optimistic for the future.
|  | | |  |
| An objective view on business ownership on 11:11 - Sep 8 with 2022 views | awayjack |
| An objective view on business ownership on 09:07 - Sep 8 by Shaky |
BTW remember that the what counts is the net book value of player player sales for the purposes of (re)calculating amortisation and carrying values, not the headline selling prices.
And in the case of all player sales they were relatively small with the exception of Mesa and Clucas, that both generated accounting losses. |
Yup appreciate it’s NBV and suspect you’re estimates more accurate than mine. It’ll be interesting to see what 2018 accounts show when they are filed next year. Income be fairly easy forecast but operating costs and various player P&L is tough to predict. Not helped by growing secrecy around player sales and costs. Tranfermarket has a stab but Kaplan said this week the club only managed £30m from sales versus reported £45m. Unless he referring to up-front payments versus deferred we’ve secured debt against plus any add-ons that maybe £15m or so. |  | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 11:18 - Sep 8 with 2007 views | omarjack |
| An objective view on business ownership on 11:11 - Sep 8 by awayjack |
Yup appreciate it’s NBV and suspect you’re estimates more accurate than mine. It’ll be interesting to see what 2018 accounts show when they are filed next year. Income be fairly easy forecast but operating costs and various player P&L is tough to predict. Not helped by growing secrecy around player sales and costs. Tranfermarket has a stab but Kaplan said this week the club only managed £30m from sales versus reported £45m. Unless he referring to up-front payments versus deferred we’ve secured debt against plus any add-ons that maybe £15m or so. |
Realistic analysis for the next 2 financial accounts. (if nothing changes) by omarjack 8 Sep 2018 9:43
Warning: These are rough estimates, might be way off as I might be missing some details. But I thought it might help a bit to understand things a bit more clearly.
For the 2017/2018 accounts:
-Turnover estimate:125 m
-Costs estimate: 135 m (110 m in wages/25 m other costs)
Net = - 10 m
Players bought and sold for this period: (until 31 July) (note: I might have made few errors regarding the time of the transactions, whether it'll be considered a part of the upcoming financial accounts or the next)
Bought:
Player------------Fee------------Amortisation
R.Sanches------------5 m---------------5 m
Bony-----------------12 m--------------6 m
Clucas---------------15 m--------------3.8 m
T.Abraham----------1.5 m-------------1.5 m
A.Ayew---------------20 m--------------5.7 m
Celina----------------3 m----------------0.7 m
Asoro-----------------2 m----------------0.7 m
Total player registrations: + 23.5 m (10% increase with agent fees etc) = + 26 m
Sold:
Player---------------Fee-------------Book value at the time of sale (est)-----------Profit on sale
Sigurosson---------40 m----------------------------2 m----------------------------------- + 38 m
Llorente-----------13.5 m-------------------------3 m---------------------------------- + 10.5 m
Kingsley------------3 m---------------------------0---------------------------------------+ 3 m
Mesa-----------------5.5 m------------------------8 m------------------------------------- - 2.5 m
Fabianski-------------7 m-------------------------0----------------------------------------- + 7 m
Bartley------------------4 m------------------------0------------------------------------------ + 4 m
Total profit on sale: + 60 m (- 10% for safety) = + 54 m
Sales vs Registrations = 54-26= + 28 m
And if we consider a 10 m loss without considering players trading, then the net profit should be..
+ 18 m pre-tax
2018/2019 accounts:
-Turnover estimate: 60 m (due to relegation obviously)
-Costs estimates: 90 m (65-70 m in wages/20-25 m other costs)
Net= - 30 m
Players trading for that period (so far)
Bought:
Player------------Fee------------Amortisation
McKay---------------0.5 m--------------0.2 m
John-----------------0.5 m---------------0.2 m
Total player registrations: + 0.5 m
Sold:
Player---------------Fee-------------Book value at the time of sale (est)-----------Profit on sale
Mawson------------15 m-------------------------2.5 m---------------------------------- + 13.5 m
Clucas---------------6 m--------------------------11 m------------------------------------- - 5 m
Fernandez------------6 m-------------------------2 m-------------------------------------- + 4 m
Amat---------------------1 m-----------------------1 m----------------------------------------- 0
Total: +12.5 m
Sales vs Registrations = 12.5 - 0.5 = - 12 m
And if we consider a 30 m loss without considering players trading, then the net profit should be..
- 18 m
So the profit vs loss for the next 2 years will be Zero. A coincidence?
I just posted this, a rough estimate. We don't have exact figures and my method could be faulty but maybe it's worth a share.
As for Kaplan saying we've sold players for 30 m instead of 45 m..
Transfermarkt is fairly accurate..Potter said we bought players for 6 m this summer..which is what's reported on TM. I'd like to think that sales should also be accurate enough..We either undersold players in a criminal manner. Or K & L are slurping money out of the official accounts. |  |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 20:25 - Sep 9 with 1928 views | Elmo |
Great that you and a few others are proferring alternative scenarios
Notwithstanding your previous point that the Trust is restricted in its ability to actively contribute to managing the Financials/business - do you think the Trust and its Finance Affiliate is sufficiently:
- proactively engaging with fellow Board members
- challenging the Financials - actuals and forecast/ plan
- forensically reviewing monthly managements account in a timely way
- developing alternative forecast scenarios
- on the front foot (or are they tail-end charlies?)
All of the above is standard operating procedure | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 11:30 - Sep 10 with 1861 views | Shaky |
| An objective view on business ownership on 20:25 - Sep 9 by Elmo |
Great that you and a few others are proferring alternative scenarios
Notwithstanding your previous point that the Trust is restricted in its ability to actively contribute to managing the Financials/business - do you think the Trust and its Finance Affiliate is sufficiently:
- proactively engaging with fellow Board members
- challenging the Financials - actuals and forecast/ plan
- forensically reviewing monthly managements account in a timely way
- developing alternative forecast scenarios
- on the front foot (or are they tail-end charlies?)
All of the above is standard operating procedure |
Give it a rest, Elmo, eh?
I'm sure Lisa is doing the best she can under very difficult circumstances. |  |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 11:42 - Sep 10 with 1854 views | Elmo |
| An objective view on business ownership on 11:30 - Sep 10 by Shaky |
Give it a rest, Elmo, eh?
I'm sure Lisa is doing the best she can under very difficult circumstances. |
I will do, and Im sure she is - its not a personal thing.
Genuinely frustrated that standard/basic stuff doesn't seem to be happening, is all - at a time when we need it most | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 12:49 - Sep 10 with 1822 views | londonlisa2001 |
| An objective view on business ownership on 11:42 - Sep 10 by Elmo |
I will do, and Im sure she is - its not a personal thing.
Genuinely frustrated that standard/basic stuff doesn't seem to be happening, is all - at a time when we need it most |
Not personal?
Yeah. That’s why you’ve made over a dozen separate posts criticising me in the past week.
A more cynical person would wonder if the criticism that has so obviously ramped up has anything to do with the fact that some searching financial questions have been asked. Questioning which hasn’t pleased everyone perhaps.
Good job I’m not cynical about such matters eh? So I’m just assuming that you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase ‘we have not received the answers to the questions that have been asked’. | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:04 - Sep 10 with 1800 views | LeonWasGod |
| An objective view on business ownership on 11:18 - Sep 8 by omarjack |
Realistic analysis for the next 2 financial accounts. (if nothing changes) by omarjack 8 Sep 2018 9:43
Warning: These are rough estimates, might be way off as I might be missing some details. But I thought it might help a bit to understand things a bit more clearly.
For the 2017/2018 accounts:
-Turnover estimate:125 m
-Costs estimate: 135 m (110 m in wages/25 m other costs)
Net = - 10 m
Players bought and sold for this period: (until 31 July) (note: I might have made few errors regarding the time of the transactions, whether it'll be considered a part of the upcoming financial accounts or the next)
Bought:
Player------------Fee------------Amortisation
R.Sanches------------5 m---------------5 m
Bony-----------------12 m--------------6 m
Clucas---------------15 m--------------3.8 m
T.Abraham----------1.5 m-------------1.5 m
A.Ayew---------------20 m--------------5.7 m
Celina----------------3 m----------------0.7 m
Asoro-----------------2 m----------------0.7 m
Total player registrations: + 23.5 m (10% increase with agent fees etc) = + 26 m
Sold:
Player---------------Fee-------------Book value at the time of sale (est)-----------Profit on sale
Sigurosson---------40 m----------------------------2 m----------------------------------- + 38 m
Llorente-----------13.5 m-------------------------3 m---------------------------------- + 10.5 m
Kingsley------------3 m---------------------------0---------------------------------------+ 3 m
Mesa-----------------5.5 m------------------------8 m------------------------------------- - 2.5 m
Fabianski-------------7 m-------------------------0----------------------------------------- + 7 m
Bartley------------------4 m------------------------0------------------------------------------ + 4 m
Total profit on sale: + 60 m (- 10% for safety) = + 54 m
Sales vs Registrations = 54-26= + 28 m
And if we consider a 10 m loss without considering players trading, then the net profit should be..
+ 18 m pre-tax
2018/2019 accounts:
-Turnover estimate: 60 m (due to relegation obviously)
-Costs estimates: 90 m (65-70 m in wages/20-25 m other costs)
Net= - 30 m
Players trading for that period (so far)
Bought:
Player------------Fee------------Amortisation
McKay---------------0.5 m--------------0.2 m
John-----------------0.5 m---------------0.2 m
Total player registrations: + 0.5 m
Sold:
Player---------------Fee-------------Book value at the time of sale (est)-----------Profit on sale
Mawson------------15 m-------------------------2.5 m---------------------------------- + 13.5 m
Clucas---------------6 m--------------------------11 m------------------------------------- - 5 m
Fernandez------------6 m-------------------------2 m-------------------------------------- + 4 m
Amat---------------------1 m-----------------------1 m----------------------------------------- 0
Total: +12.5 m
Sales vs Registrations = 12.5 - 0.5 = - 12 m
And if we consider a 30 m loss without considering players trading, then the net profit should be..
- 18 m
So the profit vs loss for the next 2 years will be Zero. A coincidence?
I just posted this, a rough estimate. We don't have exact figures and my method could be faulty but maybe it's worth a share.
As for Kaplan saying we've sold players for 30 m instead of 45 m..
Transfermarkt is fairly accurate..Potter said we bought players for 6 m this summer..which is what's reported on TM. I'd like to think that sales should also be accurate enough..We either undersold players in a criminal manner. Or K & L are slurping money out of the official accounts. |
"We either undersold players in a criminal manner. Or K & L are slurping money out of the official accounts."
Or we panic sold and are just a bit sh*t at negotiations. Which is what my money would be on given some of the stupid deals over the last few years (Clucas, Bony & Ayews mark 2, Baston, etc.). Can't be easy shifting high-earning players other teams aren't that keen on though. |  | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:05 - Sep 10 with 1796 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 12:49 - Sep 10 by londonlisa2001 |
Not personal?
Yeah. That’s why you’ve made over a dozen separate posts criticising me in the past week.
A more cynical person would wonder if the criticism that has so obviously ramped up has anything to do with the fact that some searching financial questions have been asked. Questioning which hasn’t pleased everyone perhaps.
Good job I’m not cynical about such matters eh? So I’m just assuming that you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase ‘we have not received the answers to the questions that have been asked’. |
Not sure that adds up Lisa.
He seems to be wanting to keep you on your toes and make sure you've asked questions and are keeping on top of the financials.
Not the opposite as you're suggesting.
And these insinuations you and the 2 Andrew's keep making. Just get it out there FFS if you've got anything to say.
Yesterday Outsider was almost accused of 'knowing' something and now Elmo is getting the same treatment?
What's going on, you seem as paranoid as Shaky. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:37 - Sep 10 with 1756 views | londonlisa2001 |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:05 - Sep 10 by _ |
Not sure that adds up Lisa.
He seems to be wanting to keep you on your toes and make sure you've asked questions and are keeping on top of the financials.
Not the opposite as you're suggesting.
And these insinuations you and the 2 Andrew's keep making. Just get it out there FFS if you've got anything to say.
Yesterday Outsider was almost accused of 'knowing' something and now Elmo is getting the same treatment?
What's going on, you seem as paranoid as Shaky. |
Everyone knows we’ve asked questions. Everyone knows we haven’t received answers.
Making a dozen posts in the last week insinuating I’m not doing what I should (scrap that, not insinuating, actually saying it) isn’t keeping me on my toes, it’s attempting to discredit.
As are remarks about the Trust being ‘conference level’ or sub standard.
Wake up and smell the coffee mun. If you can’t see that posts are being made to muddy waters you’re not looking very hard. | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:39 - Sep 10 with 1753 views | Elmo |
| An objective view on business ownership on 12:49 - Sep 10 by londonlisa2001 |
Not personal?
Yeah. That’s why you’ve made over a dozen separate posts criticising me in the past week.
A more cynical person would wonder if the criticism that has so obviously ramped up has anything to do with the fact that some searching financial questions have been asked. Questioning which hasn’t pleased everyone perhaps.
Good job I’m not cynical about such matters eh? So I’m just assuming that you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase ‘we have not received the answers to the questions that have been asked’. |
Not at all personal.
Simply some basic questions around process - not content (of course dont expect you to reveal confidential stuff).
As a professional investor (and ex big4 chartered accountant / management consultant) I make it my point to ensure Management processes exist to both safeguard investments and provide focus on growth/strategy. The Financials and the management processes are key. The CFO and its team should have the finger on the pulse.
The Trust with 21.1% investment - I would hope would also be doing the above. Reassurance to that effect is all I have been looking for. Whether that's you are somebody else. Not personal | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:48 - Sep 10 with 1744 views | londonlisa2001 |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:39 - Sep 10 by Elmo |
Not at all personal.
Simply some basic questions around process - not content (of course dont expect you to reveal confidential stuff).
As a professional investor (and ex big4 chartered accountant / management consultant) I make it my point to ensure Management processes exist to both safeguard investments and provide focus on growth/strategy. The Financials and the management processes are key. The CFO and its team should have the finger on the pulse.
The Trust with 21.1% investment - I would hope would also be doing the above. Reassurance to that effect is all I have been looking for. Whether that's you are somebody else. Not personal |
Terrific.
So. What do you suggest we do when we’ve asked a whole series of detailed questions and no answers are being provided?
Make stuff up? To post on here?
After all, as a professional investor, you’ll understand that the CFO doesn’t sit on the Trust board? You’ll understand that the CFO can have a finger on the pulse because they have the information needed to do that? Management processes are in place because management can access information?
Or maybe, as a professional investor, ex big 4 chartered accountant / management consultant, you think that it’s better to refuse to accept what has been said, and instead bang on about people being ‘conference level’ and delighting in forecasts based on guesswork and incorrect / incomplete information? | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:49 - Sep 10 with 1740 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:39 - Sep 10 by Elmo |
Not at all personal.
Simply some basic questions around process - not content (of course dont expect you to reveal confidential stuff).
As a professional investor (and ex big4 chartered accountant / management consultant) I make it my point to ensure Management processes exist to both safeguard investments and provide focus on growth/strategy. The Financials and the management processes are key. The CFO and its team should have the finger on the pulse.
The Trust with 21.1% investment - I would hope would also be doing the above. Reassurance to that effect is all I have been looking for. Whether that's you are somebody else. Not personal |
I don't know who you are or what your intentions are, or whether you are trying to muddy the water, as Lisa puts it, but the points you've made seem more than fair to me.
But then again, I'm clearly not suffering from the same levels of paranoia those on the Trust are.
It would be nice if the Trust just got 'somewhere' sometimes, and not just constantly hide behind the rather tiresome 'we've tried.... We've asked.... We're waiting....' | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:51 - Sep 10 with 1734 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:48 - Sep 10 by londonlisa2001 |
Terrific.
So. What do you suggest we do when we’ve asked a whole series of detailed questions and no answers are being provided?
Make stuff up? To post on here?
After all, as a professional investor, you’ll understand that the CFO doesn’t sit on the Trust board? You’ll understand that the CFO can have a finger on the pulse because they have the information needed to do that? Management processes are in place because management can access information?
Or maybe, as a professional investor, ex big 4 chartered accountant / management consultant, you think that it’s better to refuse to accept what has been said, and instead bang on about people being ‘conference level’ and delighting in forecasts based on guesswork and incorrect / incomplete information? |
This is exactly what I mean.....
They're trying. ...'
Hmm. | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 14:08 - Sep 10 with 1708 views | Elmo |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:49 - Sep 10 by _ |
I don't know who you are or what your intentions are, or whether you are trying to muddy the water, as Lisa puts it, but the points you've made seem more than fair to me.
But then again, I'm clearly not suffering from the same levels of paranoia those on the Trust are.
It would be nice if the Trust just got 'somewhere' sometimes, and not just constantly hide behind the rather tiresome 'we've tried.... We've asked.... We're waiting....' |
Just an avid lifelong supporter, getting more and more frustrated with the lack of transparency (around process esp) - (emotionally) invested in the well-being of our club, on and off the pitch. And ST holder.
No hidden agenda, no muddying - its the muddiness Im trying to see through that frustrates | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 14:31 - Sep 10 with 1681 views | vetchonian |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:51 - Sep 10 by _ |
This is exactly what I mean.....
They're trying. ...'
Hmm. |
Like you are trying
Give it a restChris
It has been explained how the Trust are not getting answers how they have to sign NDAs
So why do you keep sniping at the trust?
The Yanks are the ones it appears with something to hide...... why are they not willing to answer the questions?
YOu keep having a go at fans who are anti the club...well the club is not helping themselves ....people make things up to fill the gaps as I have discussed in a previous post....people are quoting the "profit" made in this last transfer window as we havent spent much on incomings....as has been stated we have a huge deficit to plug but again it seems the Yanks do not want to let the "trust" see what is what
I do wonder what is your agenda [Post edited 10 Sep 2018 14:35]
| |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 14:52 - Sep 10 with 1661 views | vetchonian |
| An objective view on business ownership on 14:08 - Sep 10 by Elmo |
Just an avid lifelong supporter, getting more and more frustrated with the lack of transparency (around process esp) - (emotionally) invested in the well-being of our club, on and off the pitch. And ST holder.
No hidden agenda, no muddying - its the muddiness Im trying to see through that frustrates |
Have you read the statement from the Trust following last weeks forum?
The lack of transparency is form the owners so why have a go at the Trust?
IT has been explained that yes the Supporters director and an associate may meet with the board and be shown the numbers but neither will be allowed to share that info with the rest of the Trust board
AS Lisa states it starts to look like the club employing persons on here to deflect away from the real problem | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 15:13 - Sep 10 with 1636 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 14:31 - Sep 10 by vetchonian |
Like you are trying
Give it a restChris
It has been explained how the Trust are not getting answers how they have to sign NDAs
So why do you keep sniping at the trust?
The Yanks are the ones it appears with something to hide...... why are they not willing to answer the questions?
YOu keep having a go at fans who are anti the club...well the club is not helping themselves ....people make things up to fill the gaps as I have discussed in a previous post....people are quoting the "profit" made in this last transfer window as we havent spent much on incomings....as has been stated we have a huge deficit to plug but again it seems the Yanks do not want to let the "trust" see what is what
I do wonder what is your agenda [Post edited 10 Sep 2018 14:35]
|
You can keep on wondering all you like, or you can listen for once and find out.
Balance. Fairness to all.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the NDA, they did invite Stu MacDonald to provide the information.
That wasn't suitable to the Trust and I can see why. But it seems sensitive information going into the public domain isn't suitable to the Americans - and I can see that as much as well.
Also, with regards the Trust, all I'm saying there is they lack the capabilities in getting things done. I don't know how far we could go back to see we get lots of huff and puff but little end product. A bit like Modu Barrow.
Can you argue, politely and sensibly, with any of the above? | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 15:16 - Sep 10 with 1632 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 14:52 - Sep 10 by vetchonian |
Have you read the statement from the Trust following last weeks forum?
The lack of transparency is form the owners so why have a go at the Trust?
IT has been explained that yes the Supporters director and an associate may meet with the board and be shown the numbers but neither will be allowed to share that info with the rest of the Trust board
AS Lisa states it starts to look like the club employing persons on here to deflect away from the real problem |
I think posters, but especially the Trust Board, would be better employed getting on with the bloody job instead of trying their own weak version of deflection and overplaying the sympathy card.
How much longer?? | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 16:14 - Sep 10 with 1574 views | vetchonian |
| An objective view on business ownership on 15:13 - Sep 10 by _ |
You can keep on wondering all you like, or you can listen for once and find out.
Balance. Fairness to all.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the NDA, they did invite Stu MacDonald to provide the information.
That wasn't suitable to the Trust and I can see why. But it seems sensitive information going into the public domain isn't suitable to the Americans - and I can see that as much as well.
Also, with regards the Trust, all I'm saying there is they lack the capabilities in getting things done. I don't know how far we could go back to see we get lots of huff and puff but little end product. A bit like Modu Barrow.
Can you argue, politely and sensibly, with any of the above? |
Ok Chris
SO show some balance and fairness to the Trust. It appears there is now a Different impetus from the Trust but how can you question capability when as you admit there are stumbling blocks put in their way.
Isnt it great that Stu Mac was invited to see some information but what is the use in that if then he or the Trust can not act on it?
They now seem to be uppong the ante re legal action...maybe some will say this should have been done sooner...but we cannot change the past only the future.
I have said elswhere I am giving the Yanks the benefit of the doubt for the moment I will judge them by their future actions and what occurs in the January transfer window. I have never been sure about them and still have reservations but I am giving them a chance...maybe you need to do the same for the Trust too give the "new" regime a chance.....
Dont forget they are currently in a legal process and therefore must ensure they follow the correct proceeses ...so it may seem long winded
What end product are you expecting from the Trust?
How would you approach things differently? | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 17:50 - Sep 10 with 1513 views | harryhpalmer |
Simple answer to one of your Qs - the Trust tried to buy Mel Nurse's shares.
Mel wanted to sell them all to the Trust.
The other shareholders invoked the shareholder agreement to prevent the Trust from buying those shares, that would have taken them over the magic 26% shareholding, protecting them and giving them more rights.
So the Q you should be asking is, why did those "sellers" block the Trust? | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 17:56 - Sep 10 with 1509 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 16:14 - Sep 10 by vetchonian |
Ok Chris
SO show some balance and fairness to the Trust. It appears there is now a Different impetus from the Trust but how can you question capability when as you admit there are stumbling blocks put in their way.
Isnt it great that Stu Mac was invited to see some information but what is the use in that if then he or the Trust can not act on it?
They now seem to be uppong the ante re legal action...maybe some will say this should have been done sooner...but we cannot change the past only the future.
I have said elswhere I am giving the Yanks the benefit of the doubt for the moment I will judge them by their future actions and what occurs in the January transfer window. I have never been sure about them and still have reservations but I am giving them a chance...maybe you need to do the same for the Trust too give the "new" regime a chance.....
Dont forget they are currently in a legal process and therefore must ensure they follow the correct proceeses ...so it may seem long winded
What end product are you expecting from the Trust?
How would you approach things differently? |
Of course Stuart can act on what's provided to him, he would just need to box clever and not share the info with his Board.
It wouldn't put him in a great position I agree but at least someone would be in receipt of the requested info.
As far as I'm concerned not enough has been done by the Trust and not by a long chalk. They arrange one of these insipid fans forums and the Americans arrange their own press conference. Is that a coincidence? I think not.
Which would suggest they're trying to manage communication and to get their side of the story out there as well.
What I'd do, up the ante, get stuck in, be more public with communication, name and shame, get things done.
Don't just send polite emails with pathetic deadlines for the type of info that's been recently requested, this aspect has nothing to do with why we're in remediation.
But let's face it, they're not exactly going to jump up and act on one of Stu's correspondences are they?
We have always needed a bit of bite up there, no, a lot of bite. But what we've always had is polite silence and excuses.
I'm sure you know this but you'll blindly defend whoever it is until the cows come home.
You're as much a part of the problem as Stu himself. | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 18:28 - Sep 10 with 1481 views | Dippy |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:49 - Sep 10 by _ |
I don't know who you are or what your intentions are, or whether you are trying to muddy the water, as Lisa puts it, but the points you've made seem more than fair to me.
But then again, I'm clearly not suffering from the same levels of paranoia those on the Trust are.
It would be nice if the Trust just got 'somewhere' sometimes, and not just constantly hide behind the rather tiresome 'we've tried.... We've asked.... We're waiting....' |
I don't think Huw & Co know what instalments are due from player sales..
Why are they holding finances back?
Are instalments from previous transfers due?
I don't believe we're skint.. mismanagement of finances seems the logical stance.. with the silence.
Are we break even? In the now?
It's all silence.. | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 18:48 - Sep 10 with 1453 views | awayjack |
| An objective view on business ownership on 17:50 - Sep 10 by harryhpalmer |
Simple answer to one of your Qs - the Trust tried to buy Mel Nurse's shares.
Mel wanted to sell them all to the Trust.
The other shareholders invoked the shareholder agreement to prevent the Trust from buying those shares, that would have taken them over the magic 26% shareholding, protecting them and giving them more rights.
So the Q you should be asking is, why did those "sellers" block the Trust? |
Yes it’s suprising this didn’t raise more questions at the time. Although at that time fans thought HJ, MM and LD were true fans and believed the ‘run by the fans’ stuff. | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 18:52 - Sep 10 with 1449 views | vetchonian |
| An objective view on business ownership on 17:50 - Sep 10 by harryhpalmer |
Simple answer to one of your Qs - the Trust tried to buy Mel Nurse's shares.
Mel wanted to sell them all to the Trust.
The other shareholders invoked the shareholder agreement to prevent the Trust from buying those shares, that would have taken them over the magic 26% shareholding, protecting them and giving them more rights.
So the Q you should be asking is, why did those "sellers" block the Trust? |
Great post to which I se no response from the defender of the sellouts.....I expect he is awaiting his brief | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 19:04 - Sep 10 with 1435 views | waynekerr55 |
| An objective view on business ownership on 17:50 - Sep 10 by harryhpalmer |
Simple answer to one of your Qs - the Trust tried to buy Mel Nurse's shares.
Mel wanted to sell them all to the Trust.
The other shareholders invoked the shareholder agreement to prevent the Trust from buying those shares, that would have taken them over the magic 26% shareholding, protecting them and giving them more rights.
So the Q you should be asking is, why did those "sellers" block the Trust? |
The SHA that doesn't exist you mean? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
