By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
a) £23m of investment to keep the debt low and seeing out Covid*. b) Working hard to find managers to fit the club ethos c) Bringing over US business people to manage the club directly d) Continuing to support the Academy with Sam Parker the latest graduate e) Finding and bringing in new investors Morris and Silverstein. g) Getting US sponsorship. Visit central Florida.
What what have the fans group done? 10%+ club owners.
* Biggest ever investment in the club
I reiterate if they didn't make so many mistakes they wouldn't need to invest so much just to tread water. An example is paying compensation for Duff and his team then having to pay up the contract. Another paying £2.5M on a forward who looks far from value for money. Bringing Whittaker back from Plymouth and failing to negotiate a sale in January then selling for £1M to Plymouth where he may well be sold for £10M. I could go on, but as I say act like amateurs in a professional game and it is going to cost you. Run the club properly and it won't cost you so much.
I reiterate if they didn't make so many mistakes they wouldn't need to invest so much just to tread water. An example is paying compensation for Duff and his team then having to pay up the contract. Another paying £2.5M on a forward who looks far from value for money. Bringing Whittaker back from Plymouth and failing to negotiate a sale in January then selling for £1M to Plymouth where he may well be sold for £10M. I could go on, but as I say act like amateurs in a professional game and it is going to cost you. Run the club properly and it won't cost you so much.
Yep, you're quite right. And the Whittaker sale is gonna prove more costly than that I suspect. For balance, of course, they have made money from good appointments and good player acquisitions at times - Potter, Martin etc and Downes, Lowe , Piroe, etc. But overall, in theior terms (financial) they've turned a £120m asset into one worth a 1/5 of that, at best.
Yep, you're quite right. And the Whittaker sale is gonna prove more costly than that I suspect. For balance, of course, they have made money from good appointments and good player acquisitions at times - Potter, Martin etc and Downes, Lowe , Piroe, etc. But overall, in theior terms (financial) they've turned a £120m asset into one worth a 1/5 of that, at best.
This is true, but the Duff appointment, Yates purchase and Whittaker sale all happened on Colemans watch, granted the Whittaker damage was done by the owners before he arrived.
This is true, but the Duff appointment, Yates purchase and Whittaker sale all happened on Colemans watch, granted the Whittaker damage was done by the owners before he arrived.
The owners cannot tell the manager who to pick. The current Championship hot shot was returned to Swansea by the ownership. Martin wanted help in forward areas a so needed a striker.
Martin was the manager and could either play Whittaker as a striker or sell him to provide funds for a new striker. He did neither.
Don't waste your time mate he can't absorb facts as he is to busy listing to those little voices in his head.
SCST could not cut a deal. The SCST Board did not want to sell.
In any sale there must be a willing buyer and willing seller. This worked for all the other owners. So why did they not sell a single share? Buyers were circling 2015 onwards. At least three parties reported.
2015 SCST "We have told our partners our shares are not up for sale and never will be".
2016 SCST "Selling our shares is not our preference ".
2017 SCST "We do not like the terms we have been offered".
The US people were offering £1m per 1%. The membership was asleep and did not consider the possibility of relegation.
I come from rural origins. You bring in the hay when the sun is shining. This means nothing to city folk. The 'little voices' a slur you could not even think up yourself are the voices of experience as a shareholder and investor.
The SCST have never accepted any mistakes. That is why I will never join.
The owners cannot tell the manager who to pick. The current Championship hot shot was returned to Swansea by the ownership. Martin wanted help in forward areas a so needed a striker.
Martin was the manager and could either play Whittaker as a striker or sell him to provide funds for a new striker. He did neither.
The owners can tell a manger not to pick a player because a sale is imminent, then they messed up.
Most loan deals have a ratchet installed in their contract. If they start a game = we pay less per week If they start on the subs bench = we pay 50% If they are not in the squad = we pay 100%
I expect owners at most clubs will remind managers of any financial impact if we do/don't play players.
And sometime appearance numbers can trigger additional payments so again owners may be keen for players not to play. I am talking about clubs across the division and not just Swansea City.
SCST could not cut a deal. The SCST Board did not want to sell.
In any sale there must be a willing buyer and willing seller. This worked for all the other owners. So why did they not sell a single share? Buyers were circling 2015 onwards. At least three parties reported.
2015 SCST "We have told our partners our shares are not up for sale and never will be".
2016 SCST "Selling our shares is not our preference ".
2017 SCST "We do not like the terms we have been offered".
The US people were offering £1m per 1%. The membership was asleep and did not consider the possibility of relegation.
I come from rural origins. You bring in the hay when the sun is shining. This means nothing to city folk. The 'little voices' a slur you could not even think up yourself are the voices of experience as a shareholder and investor.
The SCST have never accepted any mistakes. That is why I will never join.
give me the names from the Swans Trust board and the names from the Swans board in connection to your allegations of 2015.
that story was timed around Noel and Moores (who also got turned away at other clubs once due diligence was conducted). Those quotes do NOT relate to the sale to Jase and Steve.
The story is dated Feb 2015 and the DC United lot did not get invovled until later in the year.
I think Resloven gets confused with the two consortiums when he is making allegations of what the Trust did or did not do.
that story was timed around Noel and Moores (who also got turned away at other clubs once due diligence was conducted). Those quotes do NOT relate to the sale to Jase and Steve.
The story is dated Feb 2015 and the DC United lot did not get invovled until later in the year.
I think Resloven gets confused with the two consortiums when he is making allegations of what the Trust did or did not do.
[Post edited 25 Jan 19:10]
You asked for proof regarding 2015. The quote states the shares are not for sale and never will be. Never will be, probably played a big part in the way the club was sold. If I were a share holder with a lot to lose, and another share holder with absolutely nothing to lose tried to stop me selling my shares I would have done exactly the same.
that story was timed around Noel and Moores (who also got turned away at other clubs once due diligence was conducted). Those quotes do NOT relate to the sale to Jase and Steve.
The story is dated Feb 2015 and the DC United lot did not get invovled until later in the year.
I think Resloven gets confused with the two consortiums when he is making allegations of what the Trust did or did not do.
[Post edited 25 Jan 19:10]
There are no allegation of anything. Not wanting to sell your shares is not a crime nor is t negligence. It was poor judgement in the absence of a credible strategy. It was often said the making money was not the objective by members.
All the records are out there for you to research. I have been following it for years. They could not sell i 2016 because they had no mandate from them members. They had no mandate from the members because selling shares was not the strategy.
By the time they got a mandate in 2017 they could not agree a deal in good time and according to the press were facing serious internal opposition to a deal. The buyer withdrew citing problems with the seller.
There are no allegation of anything. Not wanting to sell your shares is not a crime nor is t negligence. It was poor judgement in the absence of a credible strategy. It was often said the making money was not the objective by members.
All the records are out there for you to research. I have been following it for years. They could not sell i 2016 because they had no mandate from them members. They had no mandate from the members because selling shares was not the strategy.
By the time they got a mandate in 2017 they could not agree a deal in good time and according to the press were facing serious internal opposition to a deal. The buyer withdrew citing problems with the seller.
watch the Youtube clip on this thread and explain how the Trust could do anything when Jase was told not to engage with them by the previous board.
watch the Youtube clip on this thread and explain how the Trust could do anything when Jase was told not to engage with them by the previous board.
Jase was probably told that as the trust had already stated their shares are not for sale, the only thing the trust could do was try and scupper the sale, as a share holder with the risk of losing millions I would have said the same. There are some who say they wouldn't have🙄
watch the Youtube clip on this thread and explain how the Trust could do anything when Jase was told not to engage with them by the previous board.
The Trust were introduced to the US sellers who wanted to buy their shares. This was March 2016. they were asked if they wanted to sell and go no answer. They had no plan and no mandate. The sale was 4 months later.
You cannot sell unless you make preparations. There were no preparations because the shares were not up for sale. That is why they did not sell. It was entirely down to the Trust. No one else to blame.
Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
