| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. 13:48 - Apr 4 with 6698 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
I recall Easter 2010 under Paulo Sousa playing Trundle and Shefki Kuqi beating Barnsley 3-1 and the play off dream was on. It seems to me Swansea are in the exact same position (albeit in a better league position) as the club were when Paulo Sousa was in charge with tight purse strings
Reading between the lines the club did not like Sousa because of his unreasonable financial demands, (perhaps), and the rather turgid football style. Sousa took the club to the fringes of the playoffs with a relatively weak squad. He gave debuts to Keri Morgan and Jaz Richards as the acadmey was not as good as today's.
Cooper may be percieved in a similar way. This is based on the assumption that Cooper will not be able to raise the performance levels of his troops and will fail (based on current performances) to muster a credible promotion drive.
Sousa walked for whatever reason and the club got a compensation fee from Liecester. I presume the club declined Sousa's request for a bumper new deal based on his achievements. The club if is falls away this season will probably decline Coopers "bumper new deal".
My solution for this is to retrace what went right in 2010 and have a zoom call with Huw Jenkins's consultancy (in confidence ) to find and appoint the new manager. Brendan was a failed manager at Reading at the time. I would keep this confidential so as to not upset the activists and rabble rousers and fan forum cyber magnets.
[Post edited 4 Apr 2021 14:05]
|  |
| |  |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:27 - Apr 5 with 986 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:08 - Apr 5 by Chief |
I did warn you not to rely on your Burnley fantasy coming true a long time ago didn't i? |
You do not believe in the club and its future. Time for the fatalist Trust members to leave the club to the professionals and put their money in a piggy bank for a couple of decades. Inflation will see the fund slowly wilt away. It will cost the club of course and jobs will be lost but hey ho onwards and upwards.
The Trusts plan is not very good plan but at least it is a 'plan'. Better than aimless drift they had 2002 -2106. The 2016 deal was the kick up the 'arris' they needed but they sulked rather than created a sensible strategy and ran into the arms of Surrey smoothies with soft punctuation and reassuring words. "Just give use 40% of everthing you own and everything will be fine Taffy. I actually quite liked watching Wales play rugby".
The idea of putting fans in the boardroom has been a clear failure. It may work in Germany but the fans over there are probably more sophisticated and have better representatives who can network properly and do not showboat to their dim "ultras". [Post edited 5 Apr 2021 18:33]
| |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:35 - Apr 5 with 977 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:27 - Apr 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You do not believe in the club and its future. Time for the fatalist Trust members to leave the club to the professionals and put their money in a piggy bank for a couple of decades. Inflation will see the fund slowly wilt away. It will cost the club of course and jobs will be lost but hey ho onwards and upwards.
The Trusts plan is not very good plan but at least it is a 'plan'. Better than aimless drift they had 2002 -2106. The 2016 deal was the kick up the 'arris' they needed but they sulked rather than created a sensible strategy and ran into the arms of Surrey smoothies with soft punctuation and reassuring words. "Just give use 40% of everthing you own and everything will be fine Taffy. I actually quite liked watching Wales play rugby".
The idea of putting fans in the boardroom has been a clear failure. It may work in Germany but the fans over there are probably more sophisticated and have better representatives who can network properly and do not showboat to their dim "ultras". [Post edited 5 Apr 2021 18:33]
|
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT**** |  |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:39 - Apr 5 with 969 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:35 - Apr 5 by Chief |
****RANDOM UNWARRANTED DIG AT SUPPORTERS TRUST ALERT**** |
Chief you do not need to always have the last word. Engage in debate and take on the challenge. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:16 - Apr 5 with 939 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 18:39 - Apr 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Chief you do not need to always have the last word. Engage in debate and take on the challenge. |
We've been over it many, many times and since then the situation hasn't changed at all (besides your Burnley dream drifting even further away). So there's really no need to go over it all again in light of no new developments.
If there's something to debate that hasn't been before many times I'll be more than happy to engage. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:20 - Apr 5 with 935 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:16 - Apr 5 by Chief |
We've been over it many, many times and since then the situation hasn't changed at all (besides your Burnley dream drifting even further away). So there's really no need to go over it all again in light of no new developments.
If there's something to debate that hasn't been before many times I'll be more than happy to engage. |
Your 'anti debate' warning signs suggest a tendency to censorship and spin seen on other forum platforms. A constant need for the last word on everything when actually you have nothing to offer. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:26 - Apr 5 with 931 views | jack_lord |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 13:58 - Apr 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It came from Swansea council and the ratepayers. The club were using it for peanuts. The US owners have taken control of the Stadium and paying the council and the ratepayers decent money for the first time.
The US loan / investment is being used to give it a lick of paint and the pitch has been replaced. The Osprey now pay Swansea city giving the club income.
Jenkins /Morgan did an extra ordinary job and took a few bob for their efforts over 15 years of massive growth. You should give them credit. It is the Trust that want to run away with a sackfull of cash. This is because they are fearful of the future and being asked to contribute to investment in the club. They prefer to give millions to posh boys (and girls) from Surrey than invest in Swansea city AFC.
The club are doing things correctly for the players staff and community. The Trust urgently need to change course. |
The stadium had grants and nothing to do with the previous owners who, after the initial payment to oust the petty crook worked hard with the supporters who turned up in droves to help give the stream of cash for our rise. It was a mix of good decisions at the time and bobby martinez.
I am thankful for what happened and the part that Mel Nurse paid is forgotten. They took a lot of cash, however, in one dividend and made sure that the only people who run away with a sack full of cash was themselves by potentially criminally isolating the trust out of the sale. |  |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:26 - Apr 5 with 931 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:20 - Apr 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Your 'anti debate' warning signs suggest a tendency to censorship and spin seen on other forum platforms. A constant need for the last word on everything when actually you have nothing to offer. |
I've provided everything there is to say on the topic. There's no new developments, you've got no new perspectives, it's the same old flawed logic and biased viewpoint. If there's developments and you'll no doubt have an opinion on them I'll be here to keep you honest and correct your inaccuracies don't worry
 | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 11:58 - Apr 6 with 887 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:26 - Apr 5 by jack_lord |
The stadium had grants and nothing to do with the previous owners who, after the initial payment to oust the petty crook worked hard with the supporters who turned up in droves to help give the stream of cash for our rise. It was a mix of good decisions at the time and bobby martinez.
I am thankful for what happened and the part that Mel Nurse paid is forgotten. They took a lot of cash, however, in one dividend and made sure that the only people who run away with a sack full of cash was themselves by potentially criminally isolating the trust out of the sale. |
After the 2015 talks the Trust failed to consult their members and were in no position to sell even if they wanted to. They had no mandate from the members. They had no mandate because the leadership did not want to sell and said so.
The US people waited 18 months for the Trust to get their ducks in order and entered talks to buy half their shareholding. After 4 month s of talks the Trust rejected the same offer given to the sellers and the buyer ended the talks. Selling needs a seller that is keen to sell. If not it will not happen. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 12:03 - Apr 6 with 883 views | vetchonian |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 11:58 - Apr 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
After the 2015 talks the Trust failed to consult their members and were in no position to sell even if they wanted to. They had no mandate from the members. They had no mandate because the leadership did not want to sell and said so.
The US people waited 18 months for the Trust to get their ducks in order and entered talks to buy half their shareholding. After 4 month s of talks the Trust rejected the same offer given to the sellers and the buyer ended the talks. Selling needs a seller that is keen to sell. If not it will not happen. |
YAWN |  |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 12:05 - Apr 6 with 882 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 11:58 - Apr 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
After the 2015 talks the Trust failed to consult their members and were in no position to sell even if they wanted to. They had no mandate from the members. They had no mandate because the leadership did not want to sell and said so.
The US people waited 18 months for the Trust to get their ducks in order and entered talks to buy half their shareholding. After 4 month s of talks the Trust rejected the same offer given to the sellers and the buyer ended the talks. Selling needs a seller that is keen to sell. If not it will not happen. |
If it was an offer for only half it wasn't the same offer as the sellouts neccessarily then was it? | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 13:43 - Apr 6 with 863 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 12:05 - Apr 6 by Chief |
If it was an offer for only half it wasn't the same offer as the sellouts neccessarily then was it? |
The owners that wanted to leave the club entirely sold 100%. The owners that wanted to retain a stake sold half their shares. This was the offer to the Trust
When the buyer turned up in 2016 the Trust were in no position to sell 100% of its shares and stated selling was not their preference and furthermore they had no mandate from the members. You could blame the management for this in my opinion as it was common knowledge buyers were circling. They could have held vote to find members opinions after the 2015 talks.
If they wanted to sell 100% like the others they would have said so and could have served a writ to be included. They had a 3 month window.
They could not do this because they had a 'democratic deficit'. They did not know the views of the membership regarding a 100% sale.
I accept the world does not move at he pace of the Trust. Under the old regime everything took months and months. The US buyers waited for them to get a mandate (taking well over 12 months) and made a reasonable offer which now looks very generous.
It just how the world runs. A buyer turned up and the Trust could not sell 100% without a mandate. Its life. I regard it as their own fault. If you move at a snails pace sales will be lost. Business is business. When a smiling Yank turns up with £20m you had better be ready if you want to sell.
If you do not want to sell stop complaining. Swansea are still notionally in with a chance of promotion. If that happens the club will be valued well in excess of the 2016 price (possible double with no commissions) . Accept reality and move on. The chances of getting to the PL are far more credible and clear than winning in court which is nototorously unpredicatable and super expensive. The Trust has no need to make a 'dash for cash' as the club is well run in general. They have no use of the money and no track record of being financially shrewd. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:02 - Apr 6 with 861 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 13:43 - Apr 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The owners that wanted to leave the club entirely sold 100%. The owners that wanted to retain a stake sold half their shares. This was the offer to the Trust
When the buyer turned up in 2016 the Trust were in no position to sell 100% of its shares and stated selling was not their preference and furthermore they had no mandate from the members. You could blame the management for this in my opinion as it was common knowledge buyers were circling. They could have held vote to find members opinions after the 2015 talks.
If they wanted to sell 100% like the others they would have said so and could have served a writ to be included. They had a 3 month window.
They could not do this because they had a 'democratic deficit'. They did not know the views of the membership regarding a 100% sale.
I accept the world does not move at he pace of the Trust. Under the old regime everything took months and months. The US buyers waited for them to get a mandate (taking well over 12 months) and made a reasonable offer which now looks very generous.
It just how the world runs. A buyer turned up and the Trust could not sell 100% without a mandate. Its life. I regard it as their own fault. If you move at a snails pace sales will be lost. Business is business. When a smiling Yank turns up with £20m you had better be ready if you want to sell.
If you do not want to sell stop complaining. Swansea are still notionally in with a chance of promotion. If that happens the club will be valued well in excess of the 2016 price (possible double with no commissions) . Accept reality and move on. The chances of getting to the PL are far more credible and clear than winning in court which is nototorously unpredicatable and super expensive. The Trust has no need to make a 'dash for cash' as the club is well run in general. They have no use of the money and no track record of being financially shrewd. |
Right so let's stick the point now and ignore the propaganda.
So they weren't offered the same offer as the sellouts who fully sold up? | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 16:21 - Apr 6 with 850 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 14:02 - Apr 6 by Chief |
Right so let's stick the point now and ignore the propaganda.
So they weren't offered the same offer as the sellouts who fully sold up? |
I will engage with you happiliy but please decline the little spin you like to put on things with each post. Propoganda. You can do better than that. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 16:39 - Apr 6 with 844 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 16:21 - Apr 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I will engage with you happiliy but please decline the little spin you like to put on things with each post. Propoganda. You can do better than that. |
But you won't answer my question? | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 19:02 - Apr 6 with 828 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 16:39 - Apr 6 by Chief |
But you won't answer my question? |
I do not know if they got an offer or not. There is a difference of opinion on this.
In any case the Trusts shares were not up for sale accordng to the Board member speaking on behalf on the members. He stated a few months before the Levien / Kaplan approach relating to an earlier interested party.
“Talks are ongoing and there's nothing on the table yet, no offer. But I would imagine they would make that offer and be coming in here in the next month or so. If they do, we'll have to cross that bridge then, but the Americans and our own shareholders know the Supporters' Trust shares are not for sale".
This is from a Sky News report. [Post edited 6 Apr 2021 19:08]
| |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:05 - Apr 6 with 814 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 19:02 - Apr 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not know if they got an offer or not. There is a difference of opinion on this.
In any case the Trusts shares were not up for sale accordng to the Board member speaking on behalf on the members. He stated a few months before the Levien / Kaplan approach relating to an earlier interested party.
“Talks are ongoing and there's nothing on the table yet, no offer. But I would imagine they would make that offer and be coming in here in the next month or so. If they do, we'll have to cross that bridge then, but the Americans and our own shareholders know the Supporters' Trust shares are not for sale".
This is from a Sky News report. [Post edited 6 Apr 2021 19:08]
|
Well there we are then. You stated something further up this thread as fact that the trust had an offer for half their shares and now you're saying you don't know.....
If the Americans and sell outs were so sure the trust's shares weren't for sale, why all the planning secrecy?
Times change, circumstances change and that excerpt you've pasted has a key line: "we'll have to cross that bridge then". Well unfortunately as we know, the trust weren't given the opportunity to cross that bridge the same time as everyone else and you've just admitted now that you don't know that when the Americans did eventually table some sort offer, that they actually did at all or if it was on the same terms as the sell outs!! | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:13 - Apr 6 with 811 views | Chief |
To add, I've also just googled that quote and it was Huw Cooze talking explicitly about the previous American party whom they were aware of (maybe done some background research, not sure if they'd met them at this point) and obviously not keen in selling to or having involved in the club. And these words were spoken in early 2015 (well before any mention of K&L).
To assume that the stance (and conspire to uphold the upmost secrecy) would apply in relation to all future offers from all personnel across the board is just ridiculous. Terrible business practice. [Post edited 6 Apr 2021 21:08]
| |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:20 - Apr 6 with 796 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 20:13 - Apr 6 by Chief |
To add, I've also just googled that quote and it was Huw Cooze talking explicitly about the previous American party whom they were aware of (maybe done some background research, not sure if they'd met them at this point) and obviously not keen in selling to or having involved in the club. And these words were spoken in early 2015 (well before any mention of K&L).
To assume that the stance (and conspire to uphold the upmost secrecy) would apply in relation to all future offers from all personnel across the board is just ridiculous. Terrible business practice. [Post edited 6 Apr 2021 21:08]
|
Please accept thse commentas as arguments. This information I have used is taken from publically available statements. I always promote agreement between the parties.
I was not sure if they got an offer in 2016 to clarify. They certainly got offers in the talks in 2017. The terms were reportedly the same and not accepted by the Trust. For deal to be closed you need a willing buyer and seller. If the terms for £5m for 5% were not acceptable in 2017 you can assume they would not have been acceptable for £21m fr 21% in 2016 either.
Secrecy is always wise in big money wheelings and dealings. This was seen in the 2017 talks when the Trust negiocator was subjected to online abuse demonstating the disunity of the Trust. This also made the prospective buyer uncomfortable.
I do not accept the word 'sell outs'. It is the Trust who are reportedly looking to create a forced deal with their expensive friends from over the border.
I do not want to personalise especially volunteers. The words were spoken about 8-10 months before the arrival of Levien and Kaplan. The team was struggling over the time period.
You will notice in the quote, reference to the Trust "never wanting to sell". The gentleman was the representative of the Trust and the members and there is no record of him being repremanded for the comments. He was still their representative after these words so there is an argument that the words could be taken to represent Trust views at the time of the sale.
The words were revised somewhat after his departure where the Trust stated "selling was not their preference" or words to that effect. I can direct you to that quote as well if you like.
The Trust actually wanted first option on the shares to buy not sell in 2016. This notionally was to allow them to get to 25%. They were $4,000,000 short of that target and asked for the 4% as a gift.
The Trust is actually in a potentially better position to cash in by not selling in 2016 given the football inflation that has occured since. The club would be worth twice the 2016 if the club returned to the PL. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:37 - Apr 6 with 791 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:20 - Apr 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Please accept thse commentas as arguments. This information I have used is taken from publically available statements. I always promote agreement between the parties.
I was not sure if they got an offer in 2016 to clarify. They certainly got offers in the talks in 2017. The terms were reportedly the same and not accepted by the Trust. For deal to be closed you need a willing buyer and seller. If the terms for £5m for 5% were not acceptable in 2017 you can assume they would not have been acceptable for £21m fr 21% in 2016 either.
Secrecy is always wise in big money wheelings and dealings. This was seen in the 2017 talks when the Trust negiocator was subjected to online abuse demonstating the disunity of the Trust. This also made the prospective buyer uncomfortable.
I do not accept the word 'sell outs'. It is the Trust who are reportedly looking to create a forced deal with their expensive friends from over the border.
I do not want to personalise especially volunteers. The words were spoken about 8-10 months before the arrival of Levien and Kaplan. The team was struggling over the time period.
You will notice in the quote, reference to the Trust "never wanting to sell". The gentleman was the representative of the Trust and the members and there is no record of him being repremanded for the comments. He was still their representative after these words so there is an argument that the words could be taken to represent Trust views at the time of the sale.
The words were revised somewhat after his departure where the Trust stated "selling was not their preference" or words to that effect. I can direct you to that quote as well if you like.
The Trust actually wanted first option on the shares to buy not sell in 2016. This notionally was to allow them to get to 25%. They were $4,000,000 short of that target and asked for the 4% as a gift.
The Trust is actually in a potentially better position to cash in by not selling in 2016 given the football inflation that has occured since. The club would be worth twice the 2016 if the club returned to the PL. |
We'll have to wait and see what the trust were offered. If it was the same deal as the sell outs received i can't see the trust would have much of a case (although they weren't offered the terms at the same time). A QC has stated the trust has a strong case, suggesting that the trust did not receive the same bid as the other parties.
Secrecy - I'm not saying that the Americans needed to tell the whole world what they were buying. If they were so happy to by the trust's shares however there was absolutely no need to conspire to keep them out of any deal.
Its a shame that they'd have to (not sure what the nationality of counsel has to do with anything, seems a bit racist of you to keep bringing that up). The Americans could always be true to their recent words and attempt to settle out of court again which could save fees on both sides.
I was just pointing out the context of the quote you posted, which of course is extremely important. You failed to do that.
And if they were so convinced by the trust's previous statements (which are disputed by the way), i ask again, why not bid for the trust's shares along with everyone else's and at the same time? What possible harm could it have done? You simply cannot square that circle.
I don't need to address your Burnley dream again. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:48 - Apr 6 with 789 views | BillyChong |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 21:20 - Apr 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Please accept thse commentas as arguments. This information I have used is taken from publically available statements. I always promote agreement between the parties.
I was not sure if they got an offer in 2016 to clarify. They certainly got offers in the talks in 2017. The terms were reportedly the same and not accepted by the Trust. For deal to be closed you need a willing buyer and seller. If the terms for £5m for 5% were not acceptable in 2017 you can assume they would not have been acceptable for £21m fr 21% in 2016 either.
Secrecy is always wise in big money wheelings and dealings. This was seen in the 2017 talks when the Trust negiocator was subjected to online abuse demonstating the disunity of the Trust. This also made the prospective buyer uncomfortable.
I do not accept the word 'sell outs'. It is the Trust who are reportedly looking to create a forced deal with their expensive friends from over the border.
I do not want to personalise especially volunteers. The words were spoken about 8-10 months before the arrival of Levien and Kaplan. The team was struggling over the time period.
You will notice in the quote, reference to the Trust "never wanting to sell". The gentleman was the representative of the Trust and the members and there is no record of him being repremanded for the comments. He was still their representative after these words so there is an argument that the words could be taken to represent Trust views at the time of the sale.
The words were revised somewhat after his departure where the Trust stated "selling was not their preference" or words to that effect. I can direct you to that quote as well if you like.
The Trust actually wanted first option on the shares to buy not sell in 2016. This notionally was to allow them to get to 25%. They were $4,000,000 short of that target and asked for the 4% as a gift.
The Trust is actually in a potentially better position to cash in by not selling in 2016 given the football inflation that has occured since. The club would be worth twice the 2016 if the club returned to the PL. |
Was secrecy part of the shareholders agreement? | | | |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 23:21 - Apr 6 with 766 views | jack_lord |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 11:58 - Apr 6 by ReslovenSwan1 |
After the 2015 talks the Trust failed to consult their members and were in no position to sell even if they wanted to. They had no mandate from the members. They had no mandate because the leadership did not want to sell and said so.
The US people waited 18 months for the Trust to get their ducks in order and entered talks to buy half their shareholding. After 4 month s of talks the Trust rejected the same offer given to the sellers and the buyer ended the talks. Selling needs a seller that is keen to sell. If not it will not happen. |
You know this is inaccurate and you know that there were a previous party not to be confused with the secondary party that the selling shareholders kept the trust out of the picture.
The shareholders that sold who kept a percentage of their shares was no where near 50% of their original holdings. In fact they deliberately passed voting rights on to the Americans to dissolve the legitimacy of the trust and basically render the shares that the trust held valueless.
congratulations to the sellers for effing over their own supporters. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 00:39 - Apr 7 with 760 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 23:21 - Apr 6 by jack_lord |
You know this is inaccurate and you know that there were a previous party not to be confused with the secondary party that the selling shareholders kept the trust out of the picture.
The shareholders that sold who kept a percentage of their shares was no where near 50% of their original holdings. In fact they deliberately passed voting rights on to the Americans to dissolve the legitimacy of the trust and basically render the shares that the trust held valueless.
congratulations to the sellers for effing over their own supporters. |
You are pedalling a fake narrative. No one on their right mind as owners wants the Trust making any major strategic decsions.
They will not be allowed to 25% and veto rights by the others. They move at glacial pace and are not fit for purpose. All the other owners know this. They will either keep you waiting for months for a decision or threaten you with court action. They will not say this of course. I will because I am an outsider.
You only need to look at the interst rate they are getting on their £880k holding to see they are not shrewd investors. This is because it is no one's own money so why bother going for better rturns? Nobody cares. No one will thank you or reward you. Huw Jenkins turned their £20,000 into £20,000,000 in 2016 and is still sneered at. They will thank their English posh boy advisors as they walk away with 40% commisions.
The Trusts shares are not valueless. This is a myth. Not all shareholders a are active. The vast majority of shareholders are happy to leave major decsions to others. If they are not they sell their shares. If the Trust sign a tag on drag on agreement and the club is sold in the Premier league they are worth £40m+ . Real cash. The key is cooperation and trust.
Even now the Trust is worth £6m to £7m. If they were on good terms they could have sold it to Jake Slverstein. Not bad for a £200k investment. You cannot see it because you do not appear to understand or value money. If you do not understand money why be invested in Swansea city? It not the Women's Institute. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 06:54 - Apr 7 with 745 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 00:39 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are pedalling a fake narrative. No one on their right mind as owners wants the Trust making any major strategic decsions.
They will not be allowed to 25% and veto rights by the others. They move at glacial pace and are not fit for purpose. All the other owners know this. They will either keep you waiting for months for a decision or threaten you with court action. They will not say this of course. I will because I am an outsider.
You only need to look at the interst rate they are getting on their £880k holding to see they are not shrewd investors. This is because it is no one's own money so why bother going for better rturns? Nobody cares. No one will thank you or reward you. Huw Jenkins turned their £20,000 into £20,000,000 in 2016 and is still sneered at. They will thank their English posh boy advisors as they walk away with 40% commisions.
The Trusts shares are not valueless. This is a myth. Not all shareholders a are active. The vast majority of shareholders are happy to leave major decsions to others. If they are not they sell their shares. If the Trust sign a tag on drag on agreement and the club is sold in the Premier league they are worth £40m+ . Real cash. The key is cooperation and trust.
Even now the Trust is worth £6m to £7m. If they were on good terms they could have sold it to Jake Slverstein. Not bad for a £200k investment. You cannot see it because you do not appear to understand or value money. If you do not understand money why be invested in Swansea city? It not the Women's Institute. |
Every non brainwashed fan of the club wants the supporters trust to have a say in decisions made at the club.
You are now peddling a fake narrative. You are referring to the amount of time it's taking to get the case to court or the amount of time it took in negotiating with the Americans AFTER the sale. So that has absolutely no bearing on how the Americans and sellouts were thinking when they colluded to prevent the trust having any voting rights.
Next paragraph makes no sense whatsoever either. You use Huw as an example but he gave his voting rights away, so has little say either. The way they've used their money and the constraints and circumstances they find themselves under is in no way comparative to that of the club.
The rest is your usual dreaming. Tag on agreements - why would the Americans bother allowing that to happen for example. Clutching at straws big time. Cooperation and trust now with a party that actively colluded to exclude them from previous negotiations. It appears that so far they haven't kept their recent word to get back negotiating either. Hardly the basis for good trust and negotiation is it?
The Premier league Burnley dream is getting increasingly less likely game by game. And it was unlikely that the circumstances required would have happened anyway.
So even by your biased unbalanced domesday scenario guesses the trust could receive far more for their shares after legal than they are worth now. If this was the Americans, you'd be lauding it as fantastic business. You yourself once said "any mark up of that value cannot be considered bad business".
How do you work out this Silverstein thing!? Has he ever shown any inclination to buying existing shares? His involvement was another deal that the trust were kept in the dark about until it was common knowledge so how you think he'd want to buy their shares is beyond me, he's had ample opportunity if he'd wanted to. You've spent enough time telling how he'd saved the club etc during covid with his (high interest) loan - the money wouldn't have gone directly into the club if he'd bought the trust out instead. Very weird take that one. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 09:19 - Apr 7 with 731 views | jack_lord |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 00:39 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are pedalling a fake narrative. No one on their right mind as owners wants the Trust making any major strategic decsions.
They will not be allowed to 25% and veto rights by the others. They move at glacial pace and are not fit for purpose. All the other owners know this. They will either keep you waiting for months for a decision or threaten you with court action. They will not say this of course. I will because I am an outsider.
You only need to look at the interst rate they are getting on their £880k holding to see they are not shrewd investors. This is because it is no one's own money so why bother going for better rturns? Nobody cares. No one will thank you or reward you. Huw Jenkins turned their £20,000 into £20,000,000 in 2016 and is still sneered at. They will thank their English posh boy advisors as they walk away with 40% commisions.
The Trusts shares are not valueless. This is a myth. Not all shareholders a are active. The vast majority of shareholders are happy to leave major decsions to others. If they are not they sell their shares. If the Trust sign a tag on drag on agreement and the club is sold in the Premier league they are worth £40m+ . Real cash. The key is cooperation and trust.
Even now the Trust is worth £6m to £7m. If they were on good terms they could have sold it to Jake Slverstein. Not bad for a £200k investment. You cannot see it because you do not appear to understand or value money. If you do not understand money why be invested in Swansea city? It not the Women's Institute. |
I see you slagged me off in your last paragraph.
Perhaps you have forgotten why the trust was formed and exists?
Are you saying that Mindy Kalling thinks that the trust are not fit for purpose?
And imagine if you could have made 4.4 million from your shares but, because of the way the club was sold, saw yourself in a position where your shares were never needed in the future by any buyer of the club. The biggest difference is the intentions of the trust. | |
| |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 09:35 - Apr 7 with 727 views | Chief |
| Ground hog day 2010.. 11 year cycle. on 09:19 - Apr 7 by jack_lord |
I see you slagged me off in your last paragraph.
Perhaps you have forgotten why the trust was formed and exists?
Are you saying that Mindy Kalling thinks that the trust are not fit for purpose?
And imagine if you could have made 4.4 million from your shares but, because of the way the club was sold, saw yourself in a position where your shares were never needed in the future by any buyer of the club. The biggest difference is the intentions of the trust. |
And your last paragraph goes back to the decision making / voting rights. We know the Americans are in this venture to make money and broadly you could say they need the club to be successful to do that. However, there will be times where the Americans will have their investment in mind and not the club.
Just one example off top of my head, imagine next season we get promoted and come January we are 2 points off safety he relegation zone. Off field parties have made it known that they are interested in buying the club but aren't sure due to the clubs accounts especially in light of the prospect of us going down. Imagine someone comes in with a 20mill bid for a key player that January. The supporters and the supporters trust are obviously not going to want to sell. They'll be needed. The Americans however smelling a sale could well want to sell to improve their chances of selling as it'll make the balance book look better. [Post edited 7 Apr 2021 9:40]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
