| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? 08:54 - Sep 6 with 12093 views | TheResurrection |
Please explain why have you have never informed the fans that the Americans had put money into the Club?
The very reason the selling shareholders gave for selling was that they couldn't get the borrowing required to keep the club afloat when cashflow would all too often squeeze us. They said the new owners had the means to step in and cover these periods to keep us going.
For years fans have moaned they've not put their own money in. The selling shareholders never said they would capitalise us. But they have indeed done what was stated.
Why have you never told anyone this? |  |
| |  |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:42 - Sep 6 with 1925 views | Badlands |
The group that bought the shares to make them majority shareholders do not own the club and it would be imprudent to start putting their own money personal funds.
If the majority shareholders were to inject £69 million would you expect the Trust to come up with £21 million?
There are many ways to make a club solvent and sustainable.
Had we stayed in the Premier league I believe the Kaplan and Levine would have had to have gone ahead with changes to the financial regime anyway, as ours was unsustainable and coming close to FFP involvement. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:45 - Sep 6 with 1917 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:19 - Sep 6 by KrisP |
When fans on here say the Americans "haven't put any money on" you know full well that they mean invested their own cash for players etc, not short term loans which they quickly recover. This thread is pretty disingenuous, I don't believe you truly think that the fans here were up in arms about the owners not making short term loans when they were. |
I think a bridging loan is an investment - it comes with associated level of risk.
There is a chance that the Yanks will not get their money back.
If totally water tight then why doesn’t Trust provide £800k of its funds to do this?
It will certainly receive a better interest than where it is currently holding its funds. |  | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:49 - Sep 6 with 1907 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:45 - Sep 6 by Nookiejack |
I think a bridging loan is an investment - it comes with associated level of risk.
There is a chance that the Yanks will not get their money back.
If totally water tight then why doesn’t Trust provide £800k of its funds to do this?
It will certainly receive a better interest than where it is currently holding its funds. |
PS IAS39 would technically classify the bridging loan as a Loan And Receivable
https://www.iasplus.com/en-gb/standards/ias/ias39 | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:52 - Sep 6 with 1895 views | Jack11 |
By definition it’s underwritten. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:53 - Sep 6 with 1892 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:38 - Sep 6 by chad |
Would you say the banks are putting money into the club
I would not
They are making business loans at profitable rates, so you could actually argue they are actually taking money out of the club.
Same regardless of the source of the loan
I do not see HSBC bigging me up on their website for putting money into their business nor would I expect them to and I get an infinitesimal amount of interest in comparison.
What they are doing seems fine, but it is at best mutually beneficial. And unless you know these relatively small, guaranteed, time limited loans could not be secured elsewhere then it seems no benefit to us whatsoever where the loan comes from. |
You're completely missing the point, as has KrisP but I don't know why, it's all there to read in plain English.
Refer back to Wobbly's question that I quoted on this very thread for a quick answer
It's not difficult to work out. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:56 - Sep 6 with 1880 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:14 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
Interview with the Owners by Headmaster 3 Sep 2018 19:05https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45396360
"Swansea City's owners have warned it could take years for the club to return to the Premier League as they confront the "harsh reality" of relegation."
From Wobbly
"""You actually make an interesting point here. When talking about the owners, the trust have never corrected comments on here that the owners haven t put any new money into the club.Â
In this interview, they say they have, admittedly as loans and presumably with interest, but not equity.
That means one of three things - the interview is wrong, the management accounts are not sufficiently detailed to show this (which would be a worry!) or the trust have kept quiet"""
It seems they kept it quiet mate. I wonder if you'll have the grace to comment on this after your post from 2 nights ago? |
KrisP, Chad.... See below
Especially the bit where he says The Trust have kept quiet. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:59 - Sep 6 with 1871 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:52 - Sep 6 by Jack11 |
By definition it’s underwritten. |
Yes and does appear watertight - yet there is always a chance that they will not get their money back.
Even if that is a slim chance - so the Yanks are taking an element of risk in providing this loan.
A number of years ON Digital collapsed and the TV rights were reneged on.
Obviously very slim in respect of SKY and BT but you never know. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 14:04 - Sep 6 with 1852 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:52 - Sep 6 by Jack11 |
By definition it’s underwritten. |
I keep saying the Trust then could put up its £800k to do this - but probably would be uncomfortable to do so because of an element of risk by doing so - even if underwritten.
Yet we expect the Yanks to do so at a blink of an eye. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 14:19 - Sep 6 with 1816 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 14:04 - Sep 6 by Nookiejack |
I keep saying the Trust then could put up its £800k to do this - but probably would be uncomfortable to do so because of an element of risk by doing so - even if underwritten.
Yet we expect the Yanks to do so at a blink of an eye. |
I would say it’s more risky for the Trust because they are denied detailed running accounts and because they have started the process of taking legal action against the club.
The Americans are more likely to pay themselves back quickly than the Trust, particularly when on course for legal action between the two. They know the Trust have limited funds and they would hold a large portion of those limited funds to ransom.
That would be tactically suicidal by the Trust. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 14:29 - Sep 6 with 1787 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 14:19 - Sep 6 by Joe_bradshaw |
I would say it’s more risky for the Trust because they are denied detailed running accounts and because they have started the process of taking legal action against the club.
The Americans are more likely to pay themselves back quickly than the Trust, particularly when on course for legal action between the two. They know the Trust have limited funds and they would hold a large portion of those limited funds to ransom.
That would be tactically suicidal by the Trust. |
Yes that is very fair in current scenario.
A number of posters unfortunately did try to warn the Trust, that when it was in a minority position could run into difficult in respect of Information Rights.
All hindsight now. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 15:05 - Sep 6 with 1732 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:23 - Sep 6 by Nookiejack |
The Trust could presumably contribute some of its £800k to the short term funding need and receive presumably a better interest rate than it is currently receiving - if it is all secured and very short term? |
I would say the Trust tying its money up in such a way, especially now, would be reckless. Plus of course would need members agreement. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 18:10 - Sep 6 with 1613 views | DafyddHuw |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:10 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
I will find the exact words that they repeatedly stated when selling and we'll all see.
The Trust has deliberately misled its fans when witch hunts started forming when they have had copious amounts of opportunity to put posters correct.
It's shameful in the extreme.
Once again you're caught with your pants down. |
Any luck with finding "the exact words that they repeatedly stated when selling" yet?
Can't wait for you to deliver the goods |  | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 18:17 - Sep 6 with 1599 views | Oldjack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:10 - Sep 6 by FerrisBuellerJB |
While we’re at it Res ask your lord and master Jenkins why he refused the Chinese interest in purchasing the club. |
Stab in the dark ,but i'll wager it would have taken to long to agree plus there was a chance we may have gone down ,an urgent money making sale was needed for the treacherous ones  |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 18:33 - Sep 6 with 1576 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 18:10 - Sep 6 by DafyddHuw |
Any luck with finding "the exact words that they repeatedly stated when selling" yet?
Can't wait for you to deliver the goods |
Ux, where would they have said that, one of your fans forums? | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 18:40 - Sep 6 with 1563 views | bluenile |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:12 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
No idea, not sure if it was ever a serious option and have never met Jenkins to ask.
Maybe Nick can tell us.
But anyway, are you going to use the 'what may have been' tactic with bloody Chinese investors. Are they better known for giving football fans exactly what they want from club ownership then??? 😂 |
No.......................but they actually might have had REAL money. |  |
| Open the ipod bay doors Hal |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 19:03 - Sep 6 with 1518 views | KrisP |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:56 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
KrisP, Chad.... See below
Especially the bit where he says The Trust have kept quiet. |
I'm not denying the trust kept quiet about the bridging loans. I am disputing that these bridging loans are anything to crow about (they were made at business rates to protect their investment), or that they are what fans on this message board mean when they talk of investment and the owners "putting their own money in." And again, you know full well that isn't what they meant.
To be clear, I never expect them to be benevolent, sugar daddy owners. I never expected them to do a Man City and start buying us top players. But using these loans as evidence of anything other than them making sure their investment can pay the bills on time is wide of the mark. So the fact that the Trust hasn't used them to big up the owners isn't surprising, concerning or worthy of a thread in my opinion. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 19:24 - Sep 6 with 1495 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 19:03 - Sep 6 by KrisP |
I'm not denying the trust kept quiet about the bridging loans. I am disputing that these bridging loans are anything to crow about (they were made at business rates to protect their investment), or that they are what fans on this message board mean when they talk of investment and the owners "putting their own money in." And again, you know full well that isn't what they meant.
To be clear, I never expect them to be benevolent, sugar daddy owners. I never expected them to do a Man City and start buying us top players. But using these loans as evidence of anything other than them making sure their investment can pay the bills on time is wide of the mark. So the fact that the Trust hasn't used them to big up the owners isn't surprising, concerning or worthy of a thread in my opinion. |
I have known the short term loans were being made by the Americans for a while, I think HJ mentioned them in the past. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 19:44 - Sep 6 with 1472 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 19:03 - Sep 6 by KrisP |
I'm not denying the trust kept quiet about the bridging loans. I am disputing that these bridging loans are anything to crow about (they were made at business rates to protect their investment), or that they are what fans on this message board mean when they talk of investment and the owners "putting their own money in." And again, you know full well that isn't what they meant.
To be clear, I never expect them to be benevolent, sugar daddy owners. I never expected them to do a Man City and start buying us top players. But using these loans as evidence of anything other than them making sure their investment can pay the bills on time is wide of the mark. So the fact that the Trust hasn't used them to big up the owners isn't surprising, concerning or worthy of a thread in my opinion. |
The evidence is simple and that's this simple type of temporary financing is all we were promised by the selling shareholders and like Wobbly commented, who is remarkably conspicuous by his absence, nobody knew they were bankrolling us and using their own money to do that, and during the copious amounts of times its been posted on here about them not supporting us financially.with one cent, the Trust has never chosen to correct people and put them on the right path. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 20:06 - Sep 6 with 1436 views | jacksfullaces |
so the trust have done something wrong?
good to see the owners keeping us afloat short term.
interested in their long term cashflow intentions.
will continue to watch with interest. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 20:16 - Sep 6 with 1416 views | ScottishEddie |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 14:19 - Sep 6 by Joe_bradshaw |
I would say it’s more risky for the Trust because they are denied detailed running accounts and because they have started the process of taking legal action against the club.
The Americans are more likely to pay themselves back quickly than the Trust, particularly when on course for legal action between the two. They know the Trust have limited funds and they would hold a large portion of those limited funds to ransom.
That would be tactically suicidal by the Trust. |
The Trust have started taking legal action? Don’t they have to ballot the members first?
From the Chairman’s update, they haven’t started mediation yet! | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 21:24 - Sep 6 with 1353 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 20:16 - Sep 6 by ScottishEddie |
The Trust have started taking legal action? Don’t they have to ballot the members first?
From the Chairman’s update, they haven’t started mediation yet! |
You obviously haven't read and understood the process leading to issuing the writ. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:38 - Sep 7 with 1183 views | IAN05 |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:20 - Sep 6 by MoscowJack |
I think the Chinese interest turned out to be a scammer pretending to be rich. I don't think there was a plethora of potential owners lining up to buy a club like ours. It simply isn't attractive enough geographically (ie not in or near London, Manchester or Birmingham).
Saying that, I believe some of the sellers were too desperate to sell to care about who to. Yanks 1.0 were chased away (rightly so) but Yanks 2.0 seemed a lot more suitable. Sadly, they've failed to live up to their promises.
“We will be relentless in our determination to continually improve this club - and we have the financial resources to do so.
“We will be competitive and we will outwork our opponents on the pitch and in the boardroom.” |
The failing to live up to their promises and 'they misled' us are lines that I have heard from a few people linked to the 3 different shareholders now and seems to be the get out clause for things now going wrong or a lack of due diligence. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:40 - Sep 7 with 1177 views | IAN05 |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 19:44 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
The evidence is simple and that's this simple type of temporary financing is all we were promised by the selling shareholders and like Wobbly commented, who is remarkably conspicuous by his absence, nobody knew they were bankrolling us and using their own money to do that, and during the copious amounts of times its been posted on here about them not supporting us financially.with one cent, the Trust has never chosen to correct people and put them on the right path. |
One defence I would make for the Trust was they were at pains to make it clear on Wednesday night that there has been no evidence at all of asset stripping and that the current loans situation was nothing different to before. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:42 - Sep 7 with 1168 views | Darran |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:38 - Sep 7 by IAN05 |
The failing to live up to their promises and 'they misled' us are lines that I have heard from a few people linked to the 3 different shareholders now and seems to be the get out clause for things now going wrong or a lack of due diligence. |
One of the sellers actually told me that “there have been lots of broken promises the last two years.” |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 16:55 - Sep 7 with 1115 views | MoscowJack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:38 - Sep 7 by IAN05 |
The failing to live up to their promises and 'they misled' us are lines that I have heard from a few people linked to the 3 different shareholders now and seems to be the get out clause for things now going wrong or a lack of due diligence. |
There definitely was little, if not no due diligence done, in my opinion.
I genuinely believed there was a belief from a few owners that we could be relegated and they snatched at the first deals offered with only the HOPE that they would be good for the club. The deal for 'the few' was life-changing, so I understand their reasoning (and might have done the same myself) but it's still wrong.
Just my opinion, of course........ | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
