| Badlands 16:29 - Jan 31 with 10334 views | swancity |
Who is he ? A genuine fan ?
And why the hatred of our manager? Why try to desperately find things to criticise him constantly? And yet offer no praise whatsoever?
It’s weird. Very weird. Intriguing.
Just why ?
|  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| Badlands on 13:58 - Feb 1 with 1584 views | Chief |
Yet again another thread derailed.
And yet again by the usual suspect with that glaring omission -
***The Americans could sell their holding company and no other shareholder will neccessarily receive anything***
Which would of course render all the Burnley hypotheticals completely irrelevant (more irrelevant than they already considering all the other variables required to align). |  |
| |
| Badlands on 15:27 - Feb 1 with 1504 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Badlands on 13:58 - Feb 1 by Chief |
Yet again another thread derailed.
And yet again by the usual suspect with that glaring omission -
***The Americans could sell their holding company and no other shareholder will neccessarily receive anything***
Which would of course render all the Burnley hypotheticals completely irrelevant (more irrelevant than they already considering all the other variables required to align). |
You have been sold a complete red herring in the form of a distraction/ diversion and bought it full line and sinker. .
The US people can sell their shares in any way they want. It makes no difference to the Trust They can include the other partners or exclude them if they want to. It could be the other minor shareholders have signed 'tag on' deals. Who knows? There is a rumour that signing a tag on deal was the 'deal breaker' in the 2017 talks, This would be a "drag on" deal as I would imagine they go hand in hand.
If the prospective buyer of their US shares tell them they want the full 100% of the club then the US poeple will have a problem as the Trust has no mandate to sell. If the US people were looking to sell they will try to get the Trust on side and signed up on a tag on / drag on deal I would imagine. it should not be an issue as all parties want to maximise the selling price.
Its a straight FACT the Trust will be 'valued' at roughly £40m in the Premier league. Without cooperation they then have to find a buyer to sell it if that is what they want to do. No one can stop them. They are masters of their own destiny. In order to push thorough a sale they could lower the asking price to £36m to secure a buyer. They could do this before the US people put their shares up for sale. This will "bring the US people to the table". This discounted bargain price is still 3x the legal case compensation award after costs. this is not rocket science. Its like selling lambs in the Carmathen market.
You completey lack belief in the value of your own club. I believe in Swansea city I believe they will return to the Premier league and I believe in free market economy and the board working together for their mutual benefit. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 15:33]
|  |
| |
| Badlands on 15:31 - Feb 1 with 1503 views | Sudbury_Jack |
| Badlands on 12:04 - Feb 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
People are not too keen on strangers sniffing around asking awkward questions and applying logic to lazy thinking. Oh by the way 21% of Burnley was sold for £42m ($58m). Swansea are second and a good bet for play off at least.
The vote for legal action was based on a fake scenario. This one.
{The feckless Yankees will not invest (wrong ) will asset strip (wrong) will leave the club once the parachute are over (wrong), Swansea will fall down the leagues (wrong) and fall into adminstration (wrong). There was no alternative to legal action see butt (wrong again)]
Chief where are you you are just about the only one up for a scrap?. You do a good job in defending the indefensible. The other wallflowers just complain I am boring. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 12:07]
|
Every time i see your posts it reminds me of Will on inbetweeners.
When asked do you like football yes i do but Burnley can ...
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Badlands on 16:10 - Feb 1 with 1464 views | Chief |
| Badlands on 15:27 - Feb 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You have been sold a complete red herring in the form of a distraction/ diversion and bought it full line and sinker. .
The US people can sell their shares in any way they want. It makes no difference to the Trust They can include the other partners or exclude them if they want to. It could be the other minor shareholders have signed 'tag on' deals. Who knows? There is a rumour that signing a tag on deal was the 'deal breaker' in the 2017 talks, This would be a "drag on" deal as I would imagine they go hand in hand.
If the prospective buyer of their US shares tell them they want the full 100% of the club then the US poeple will have a problem as the Trust has no mandate to sell. If the US people were looking to sell they will try to get the Trust on side and signed up on a tag on / drag on deal I would imagine. it should not be an issue as all parties want to maximise the selling price.
Its a straight FACT the Trust will be 'valued' at roughly £40m in the Premier league. Without cooperation they then have to find a buyer to sell it if that is what they want to do. No one can stop them. They are masters of their own destiny. In order to push thorough a sale they could lower the asking price to £36m to secure a buyer. They could do this before the US people put their shares up for sale. This will "bring the US people to the table". This discounted bargain price is still 3x the legal case compensation award after costs. this is not rocket science. Its like selling lambs in the Carmathen market.
You completey lack belief in the value of your own club. I believe in Swansea city I believe they will return to the Premier league and I believe in free market economy and the board working together for their mutual benefit. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 15:33]
|
Right so your second paragraph confirms and backs up exactly what i said proving your first paragraph to be complete bluster.
How do you know they'll get the trust on side? The can sell their holding company shares to someone who'll then have full control of the club. To do as they wish.
The big paragraph is back to your irrelevant Burnley scenario. Hypotheticals, assumptions and as dollop of luck with the stars needing to align.
I'm just a realist and not a fantasist. | |
| |
| Badlands on 16:29 - Feb 1 with 1437 views | onehunglow |
| Badlands on 16:10 - Feb 1 by Chief |
Right so your second paragraph confirms and backs up exactly what i said proving your first paragraph to be complete bluster.
How do you know they'll get the trust on side? The can sell their holding company shares to someone who'll then have full control of the club. To do as they wish.
The big paragraph is back to your irrelevant Burnley scenario. Hypotheticals, assumptions and as dollop of luck with the stars needing to align.
I'm just a realist and not a fantasist. |
I'm a realist alright and Swansea really should be aiming to be back in the PL.to expand the stadium,grow the club and employ more local people.
Ambition innit | |
| |
| Badlands on 16:48 - Feb 1 with 1436 views | Chief |
| Badlands on 16:29 - Feb 1 by onehunglow |
I'm a realist alright and Swansea really should be aiming to be back in the PL.to expand the stadium,grow the club and employ more local people.
Ambition innit |
Thanks for that input. | |
| |
| Badlands on 16:53 - Feb 1 with 1429 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Badlands on 16:10 - Feb 1 by Chief |
Right so your second paragraph confirms and backs up exactly what i said proving your first paragraph to be complete bluster.
How do you know they'll get the trust on side? The can sell their holding company shares to someone who'll then have full control of the club. To do as they wish.
The big paragraph is back to your irrelevant Burnley scenario. Hypotheticals, assumptions and as dollop of luck with the stars needing to align.
I'm just a realist and not a fantasist. |
You appear to be unhappy at the way businesses can treat minor shareholders. You think it is unfair. Well that is the way it is. It involves risks. If Trust members think it is unfair why did they buy shares in the first place? They hold no cash and cannot help the club in its hour of need. What use are they?
The Trust is actually truly blessed and does not need legal advisors. They need selling agents not legal agents. Failing that they need neworking skills . They do not need US people to sell their shares for them, and they do not need anyone's permission.
Swansea getting to the Premier league within the next devade is a very good probability not fantasy. | |
| |
| Badlands on 16:55 - Feb 1 with 1433 views | Algorfajack |
| Badlands on 15:27 - Feb 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You have been sold a complete red herring in the form of a distraction/ diversion and bought it full line and sinker. .
The US people can sell their shares in any way they want. It makes no difference to the Trust They can include the other partners or exclude them if they want to. It could be the other minor shareholders have signed 'tag on' deals. Who knows? There is a rumour that signing a tag on deal was the 'deal breaker' in the 2017 talks, This would be a "drag on" deal as I would imagine they go hand in hand.
If the prospective buyer of their US shares tell them they want the full 100% of the club then the US poeple will have a problem as the Trust has no mandate to sell. If the US people were looking to sell they will try to get the Trust on side and signed up on a tag on / drag on deal I would imagine. it should not be an issue as all parties want to maximise the selling price.
Its a straight FACT the Trust will be 'valued' at roughly £40m in the Premier league. Without cooperation they then have to find a buyer to sell it if that is what they want to do. No one can stop them. They are masters of their own destiny. In order to push thorough a sale they could lower the asking price to £36m to secure a buyer. They could do this before the US people put their shares up for sale. This will "bring the US people to the table". This discounted bargain price is still 3x the legal case compensation award after costs. this is not rocket science. Its like selling lambs in the Carmathen market.
You completey lack belief in the value of your own club. I believe in Swansea city I believe they will return to the Premier league and I believe in free market economy and the board working together for their mutual benefit. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 15:33]
|
Why would anyone buy the trusts shares for 'X' without having any say in the decision making? |  |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Badlands on 17:11 - Feb 1 with 1397 views | onehunglow |
| Badlands on 16:53 - Feb 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You appear to be unhappy at the way businesses can treat minor shareholders. You think it is unfair. Well that is the way it is. It involves risks. If Trust members think it is unfair why did they buy shares in the first place? They hold no cash and cannot help the club in its hour of need. What use are they?
The Trust is actually truly blessed and does not need legal advisors. They need selling agents not legal agents. Failing that they need neworking skills . They do not need US people to sell their shares for them, and they do not need anyone's permission.
Swansea getting to the Premier league within the next devade is a very good probability not fantasy. |
Swansea getting to the Premier League again is something we should aspire to asap.Little ol Swansea never appealed to me.We can and should get back there.
Hell,I recall many not wanting to get back as they couldnt get the seats they wanted to sit with their chums,such was the demand. How about that for selfish fans.
I would willingly never ever see the Swans again in the flesh if it meant them getting back to the Prem. | |
| |
| Badlands on 17:37 - Feb 1 with 1374 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Badlands on 16:55 - Feb 1 by Algorfajack |
Why would anyone buy the trusts shares for 'X' without having any say in the decision making? |
Why not? Huw jenkins and Martin Morgan retained a holding in Swansea because they know the club and believe in Levien and Kaplan. They believe they will take the club higher and make them more money. They hedged their bets. They were so comfotable with L and K they sold their voting rights as well reportedly. They can make their recommendation in board meetings if they wish and their views will be respected. So can the Trust.
The Trust have hold shares in Swansea for 19 years and are run by accountants / volunteers . Articles in accountancy do not give you qualifications in football management. They were happy to be shareholders and have done spectacularly well. They appear to want out of the club as they expected the US people to fail. In fact they have done well.
Chinese investors for example would be looking for growth and would be happy to tag along with Kapaln and Levien plus Welsh expertise to develop the stadium and benefit from naming rights. Chinese people do not necessarily have a good understanding of football so would not want to interfere in decsion making in any case,
I have shres in Glaxosmtithkine Beacham becuase i trust in the firm's management and fundementals. I have no say in strategy as I have no clue about pharmaceuticals.
Your point is another red herring. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 17:39]
| |
| |
| Badlands on 17:58 - Feb 1 with 1353 views | krunchykarrot |
| Badlands on 11:46 - Feb 1 by Badlands |
A fan since 1959.
Season ticket holder since the move to the Liberty (not needed to stand at the Vetch)
Don't go to a lot of away matches now (4 -5 a season)
Travelled to Spain, Sweden, Italy and Romania in the UEFA Cup and to Austria, Netherlands and Portugal / Spain for pre-seasons. Didn't go go to the USA because it conflicted with work, it was too far and ... it was the USA.
I marched against Petty and put more than a few quid into supporting the take over and the Trust.
I don't 'hate' the manager I just don't think he's anywhere near as good as some fans think he is; is no where near as good as the players at his disposal and appears quite limited. I got hammered for criticising Monk and Bradley.
I appreciate quick passing, possession football, entertaining football and dislike hoofball, managers blaming others while claiming credit when they go well.
I am not keen on people whining on about who sold what to whom and for how much.
I'd love us to be in the premier league and doing well, i'm not happy being in the premier league and struggling.
If you don't like what I write ignore me ... but to start a malicious thread about a single member of this forum says far more about you than me. |
Just read this and I have a simalar history, however some of the criticism of our manager is beyond belief. Your quote "I don't 'hate' the manager I just don't think he's anywhere near as good as some fans think he is" is where i disagree. We havent got a pot to piss in, we have one player who is currently struggling taking the wages of 3-4 players. If it wasnt for our managers ability to get loanees and buy bargains like Smith your statement might have some credibility. But as we are second at the moment with a defence second to none it sounds pathetic. Also we have played some decent stuff and yes we have put in some dire performances but overall i think hes done a great job on the budget. |  | | |
| Badlands on 18:01 - Feb 1 with 1350 views | Chief |
| Badlands on 16:53 - Feb 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You appear to be unhappy at the way businesses can treat minor shareholders. You think it is unfair. Well that is the way it is. It involves risks. If Trust members think it is unfair why did they buy shares in the first place? They hold no cash and cannot help the club in its hour of need. What use are they?
The Trust is actually truly blessed and does not need legal advisors. They need selling agents not legal agents. Failing that they need neworking skills . They do not need US people to sell their shares for them, and they do not need anyone's permission.
Swansea getting to the Premier league within the next devade is a very good probability not fantasy. |
Unhappy or not im aware of the reality of the situation. The trust bought shares 'in the first place' alongside other shareholders with whom they had a shareholders agreement (another fact you like to ignore). What hour of need? You know as well as i do that the Americans or likely anyone they sell to will never be able to offer what the trust do to the club.
Yea as easy as that. Selling 21% of the club to someone who knows they'll have basically no say over matters and can sell the club to whomever they want. What a superb opportunity that sounds like.
And the rest of the events taking place that'll all have to take place for your fantastic plan to be enacted?? Those odds are severely lowered. | |
| |
| Badlands on 18:14 - Feb 1 with 1337 views | Chief |
| Badlands on 17:37 - Feb 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Why not? Huw jenkins and Martin Morgan retained a holding in Swansea because they know the club and believe in Levien and Kaplan. They believe they will take the club higher and make them more money. They hedged their bets. They were so comfotable with L and K they sold their voting rights as well reportedly. They can make their recommendation in board meetings if they wish and their views will be respected. So can the Trust.
The Trust have hold shares in Swansea for 19 years and are run by accountants / volunteers . Articles in accountancy do not give you qualifications in football management. They were happy to be shareholders and have done spectacularly well. They appear to want out of the club as they expected the US people to fail. In fact they have done well.
Chinese investors for example would be looking for growth and would be happy to tag along with Kapaln and Levien plus Welsh expertise to develop the stadium and benefit from naming rights. Chinese people do not necessarily have a good understanding of football so would not want to interfere in decsion making in any case,
I have shres in Glaxosmtithkine Beacham becuase i trust in the firm's management and fundementals. I have no say in strategy as I have no clue about pharmaceuticals.
Your point is another red herring. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 17:39]
|
Jenkins and Morgan have also made a lot of money already and can afford to essentially gamble in keeping some stake in. Or possibly that the Americans didn't want to buy all their shares. They didn't want to buy the trust's so that's a possibility. The Americans bought all they wanted or could with their budget. Personally i attribute them selling their voting rights purely down to making the sale sweeter&more likely to happen rather than any 'faith' in who they were selling to.
You seem to have convinced yourself (maybe because it makes you feel better) that the trust thought the Americans were going to fail. The Americans have learnt, but as it stands we are down a division from when they took over&as such the club is also worth less. So let's not get carried away. The faith you speak of that the sellouts apparently had hasn't yet paid off.
Chinese investors happy to tag along! Once again that's a beautiful scenario (you're good at these dreams chwarae teg). Would these Chinese investors realise that as soon as they buy 21% the Americans could sell their holding company&all the power, control of the club to basically anyone? Not such a an attractive proposition in light of that harsh reality in my eyes.
How can these entirely plausible points be a red herring? | |
| |
| Badlands on 18:40 - Feb 1 with 1305 views | raynor94 |
| Badlands on 11:46 - Feb 1 by Badlands |
A fan since 1959.
Season ticket holder since the move to the Liberty (not needed to stand at the Vetch)
Don't go to a lot of away matches now (4 -5 a season)
Travelled to Spain, Sweden, Italy and Romania in the UEFA Cup and to Austria, Netherlands and Portugal / Spain for pre-seasons. Didn't go go to the USA because it conflicted with work, it was too far and ... it was the USA.
I marched against Petty and put more than a few quid into supporting the take over and the Trust.
I don't 'hate' the manager I just don't think he's anywhere near as good as some fans think he is; is no where near as good as the players at his disposal and appears quite limited. I got hammered for criticising Monk and Bradley.
I appreciate quick passing, possession football, entertaining football and dislike hoofball, managers blaming others while claiming credit when they go well.
I am not keen on people whining on about who sold what to whom and for how much.
I'd love us to be in the premier league and doing well, i'm not happy being in the premier league and struggling.
If you don't like what I write ignore me ... but to start a malicious thread about a single member of this forum says far more about you than me. |
Sorry you deserve a lot of the gip you get on here, as this thread shows.
Your dislike of Cooper is irrational, I could understand it if were struggling, but I honestly believe we will go up automatically.
Oh and I'm a youngster, been going since 1965 |  |
| |
| Badlands on 18:57 - Feb 1 with 1302 views | swancity |
I’m not a detective chief inspector but things are becoming clearer
It seems that Badlands and Resloven May be connected and with the same motive / connection / vested interest / relationship with the previous owners hence their misguided comments based around loyalty for some strange and yet to be established reason
It’s getting clearer | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Badlands on 20:43 - Feb 1 with 1241 views | onehunglow |
| Badlands on 18:57 - Feb 1 by swancity |
I’m not a detective chief inspector but things are becoming clearer
It seems that Badlands and Resloven May be connected and with the same motive / connection / vested interest / relationship with the previous owners hence their misguided comments based around loyalty for some strange and yet to be established reason
It’s getting clearer |
You're not even Endeavour | |
| |
| Badlands on 21:28 - Feb 1 with 1218 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Badlands on 18:14 - Feb 1 by Chief |
Jenkins and Morgan have also made a lot of money already and can afford to essentially gamble in keeping some stake in. Or possibly that the Americans didn't want to buy all their shares. They didn't want to buy the trust's so that's a possibility. The Americans bought all they wanted or could with their budget. Personally i attribute them selling their voting rights purely down to making the sale sweeter&more likely to happen rather than any 'faith' in who they were selling to.
You seem to have convinced yourself (maybe because it makes you feel better) that the trust thought the Americans were going to fail. The Americans have learnt, but as it stands we are down a division from when they took over&as such the club is also worth less. So let's not get carried away. The faith you speak of that the sellouts apparently had hasn't yet paid off.
Chinese investors happy to tag along! Once again that's a beautiful scenario (you're good at these dreams chwarae teg). Would these Chinese investors realise that as soon as they buy 21% the Americans could sell their holding company&all the power, control of the club to basically anyone? Not such a an attractive proposition in light of that harsh reality in my eyes.
How can these entirely plausible points be a red herring? |
Your list of concerns tell me you and perhaps the Trust are not suited to share ownership. Company ownership changes are not completely unkown events to shareholders. In fact they are very common. Take overs changes in the ownership of majority shareholders are every day events. Sometime it is for good other times it goes badly. For that reason it is wise to hold a spread of assets and not hold all assets in one group.
I once owned shares in Cable and Wireless a UK telecom firm. Its was taken over by Liberty Global a US media firm who also bought the Virgin TV group who in turn had bought up NTL who once adorned Celtic and Rangers shirts.
I suspect the Trust never had much say in the running of Swansea city. The decsions were made by HJ and MM I suspect. The club of course recognised fan issues via the Trust director quite rightly who fought that particular corner.
Swansea city in the Premier league is a good 'buy' for anyone. Prices continue to increase as do TV revenues. Burnley was sold for £200m in the middle of a global pandemic which should tell you what a robust business it is. Is Burnley in the premier league really worth twice Swansea city in the Premier league? You have not addressed this point.
The Trust can make a fortune if things go well. They can sell by networking and making arrangement with the US people or go it alone and put their shares up for sale themselves by employing a sales agent. They have no need of acrimonious legal actions when inflation in football is pushing up priices. | |
| |
| Badlands on 22:45 - Feb 1 with 1201 views | Chief |
| Badlands on 21:28 - Feb 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Your list of concerns tell me you and perhaps the Trust are not suited to share ownership. Company ownership changes are not completely unkown events to shareholders. In fact they are very common. Take overs changes in the ownership of majority shareholders are every day events. Sometime it is for good other times it goes badly. For that reason it is wise to hold a spread of assets and not hold all assets in one group.
I once owned shares in Cable and Wireless a UK telecom firm. Its was taken over by Liberty Global a US media firm who also bought the Virgin TV group who in turn had bought up NTL who once adorned Celtic and Rangers shirts.
I suspect the Trust never had much say in the running of Swansea city. The decsions were made by HJ and MM I suspect. The club of course recognised fan issues via the Trust director quite rightly who fought that particular corner.
Swansea city in the Premier league is a good 'buy' for anyone. Prices continue to increase as do TV revenues. Burnley was sold for £200m in the middle of a global pandemic which should tell you what a robust business it is. Is Burnley in the premier league really worth twice Swansea city in the Premier league? You have not addressed this point.
The Trust can make a fortune if things go well. They can sell by networking and making arrangement with the US people or go it alone and put their shares up for sale themselves by employing a sales agent. They have no need of acrimonious legal actions when inflation in football is pushing up priices. |
Well the trust have been involved in share ownership for many a year now. Suggests they are capable of it. Everyday events somewhere in the world across every industry. Not so much Swansea City FC. And yes, some go bad.
So you admit that the trust do and have had a role all along then?
I don't think I've ever denied the Swans in the Prem might be a viable option for someone to buy. Especially when someone can buy just the Americans holding company and gain control of the club without buying all the shares. I don't know what you want me to address!?
"if things go well". Unfortunately it's not a perfect world and there's plenty of opportunity for your plan to fall apart. | |
| |
| Badlands on 00:02 - Feb 2 with 1176 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Badlands on 22:45 - Feb 1 by Chief |
Well the trust have been involved in share ownership for many a year now. Suggests they are capable of it. Everyday events somewhere in the world across every industry. Not so much Swansea City FC. And yes, some go bad.
So you admit that the trust do and have had a role all along then?
I don't think I've ever denied the Swans in the Prem might be a viable option for someone to buy. Especially when someone can buy just the Americans holding company and gain control of the club without buying all the shares. I don't know what you want me to address!?
"if things go well". Unfortunately it's not a perfect world and there's plenty of opportunity for your plan to fall apart. |
The Trust do not understand risk nor understand the possibilities they have for making a lot of money. They will need money and an aptitude for handling money if the claim of beng the 'potential saviour of Swansea city' and football in te city is to have any credence.
They have proven particularly inept in this respect. They do not appear to have learned a conciliatory approach is far more profitable. | |
| |
| Badlands on 00:50 - Feb 2 with 1160 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Badlands on 00:02 - Feb 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust do not understand risk nor understand the possibilities they have for making a lot of money. They will need money and an aptitude for handling money if the claim of beng the 'potential saviour of Swansea city' and football in te city is to have any credence.
They have proven particularly inept in this respect. They do not appear to have learned a conciliatory approach is far more profitable. |
Okay Leigh  |  | | |
| Badlands on 06:47 - Feb 2 with 1108 views | Chief |
| Badlands on 00:02 - Feb 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust do not understand risk nor understand the possibilities they have for making a lot of money. They will need money and an aptitude for handling money if the claim of beng the 'potential saviour of Swansea city' and football in te city is to have any credence.
They have proven particularly inept in this respect. They do not appear to have learned a conciliatory approach is far more profitable. |
Obviously they do. They wouldn't be pursuing court action if they weren't aware of the outcome. A potential outcome of course is being awarded money for shares "at a mark up that could never be considered a bad deal". | |
| |
| Badlands on 13:14 - Feb 2 with 1041 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Badlands on 06:47 - Feb 2 by Chief |
Obviously they do. They wouldn't be pursuing court action if they weren't aware of the outcome. A potential outcome of course is being awarded money for shares "at a mark up that could never be considered a bad deal". |
Any organisation that has 95% of its assets in a medium ranked football team should at all times be looking to lower their risk profile. Any financial advisor would tell them the risk profile is the pinnacle of the risk piramid. It is one level hgher than 'very high risk'. "bonkers risk" (my classification) in fact. Speak to your local friendly financial advisor.
Despite this the Trust in 2015 -2016 said either they did not want to sell or selling "was not prefered option". They did not understand risk. If they wanted to sell in 2015 -2016 they should have put themselves up for sale. They had no coherent strategy.
The sale to the US people has forced them to give some thought about a 'strategy' and true to form they have come up with a bad strategy. This involves forcing a sale by legal means and paying prohibitive fees to third party insurers, funder, lenders. They cannot themselves afford legal action.
The strategy only makes sense if Swansea city are perforing badly and falling down the leagues and residing in league 2 for a decade or two like Notts County. This would have happened if as expected the "yankee asset strippers" had taken money out of the club sold all the players. Instead they have put in £5m-£10m brought in two full internationals at discount prices, replaced the playing surface and maintained the stadium. Levien was never an asset stripper. One look at CV tells you that. He has been at DC for almost a decade.
The Trust will get a mark up on their shares if they win their case of course. It will however be 40-50% less that it would have been if the Trust had put themselves up for sale in 2015. The Trust argued that there was "no alternativves left" . The members bought this argument. They have been proven wrong.
The new leadership of the Trust should be brave enough to ditch old failed strategies and start networking. Inflation and the success of the team has destroyed the logic of a legal case. They should stop wasting money on third party organisations / advisors and back the club. Employing a respected business strategist to give recommendations and look at their options would give them a way out of following the existing questionable strategy.
The US owners could be at this club for another 10 years or more. [Post edited 2 Feb 2021 13:18]
| |
| |
| Badlands on 13:34 - Feb 2 with 1030 views | onehunglow |
| Badlands on 16:48 - Feb 1 by Chief |
Thanks for that input. |
and thank you too my favourite correspendent.
It' smore pleasant of late on here innit  | |
| |
| Badlands on 13:35 - Feb 2 with 1026 views | KeithHaynes |
| Badlands on 13:14 - Feb 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Any organisation that has 95% of its assets in a medium ranked football team should at all times be looking to lower their risk profile. Any financial advisor would tell them the risk profile is the pinnacle of the risk piramid. It is one level hgher than 'very high risk'. "bonkers risk" (my classification) in fact. Speak to your local friendly financial advisor.
Despite this the Trust in 2015 -2016 said either they did not want to sell or selling "was not prefered option". They did not understand risk. If they wanted to sell in 2015 -2016 they should have put themselves up for sale. They had no coherent strategy.
The sale to the US people has forced them to give some thought about a 'strategy' and true to form they have come up with a bad strategy. This involves forcing a sale by legal means and paying prohibitive fees to third party insurers, funder, lenders. They cannot themselves afford legal action.
The strategy only makes sense if Swansea city are perforing badly and falling down the leagues and residing in league 2 for a decade or two like Notts County. This would have happened if as expected the "yankee asset strippers" had taken money out of the club sold all the players. Instead they have put in £5m-£10m brought in two full internationals at discount prices, replaced the playing surface and maintained the stadium. Levien was never an asset stripper. One look at CV tells you that. He has been at DC for almost a decade.
The Trust will get a mark up on their shares if they win their case of course. It will however be 40-50% less that it would have been if the Trust had put themselves up for sale in 2015. The Trust argued that there was "no alternativves left" . The members bought this argument. They have been proven wrong.
The new leadership of the Trust should be brave enough to ditch old failed strategies and start networking. Inflation and the success of the team has destroyed the logic of a legal case. They should stop wasting money on third party organisations / advisors and back the club. Employing a respected business strategist to give recommendations and look at their options would give them a way out of following the existing questionable strategy.
The US owners could be at this club for another 10 years or more. [Post edited 2 Feb 2021 13:18]
|
The benefits of being in the premier league will appeal to them. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
