| another 2 million invested on 15:59 - Mar 27 with 1138 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 08:09 - Mar 27 by Gwyn737 |
Lets say for the £40m there are 40 shares at £1m each.
Someone owns 1 share so has £1m in the the pot.
This is an extreme way of looking at it but if a £2m investment was made but 10 more shares were issued, £42m divided by 50 shares means the investment is now worth £840,000 as opposed to £1m.
Isn't this why it's so imprtant the trust's shares cannot be diluted?
Not my area of expertise so happy to be corrected.
[Post edited 27 Mar 15:50]
|
The extra £2m goes straight into the bank so is effectively as far as Coleman is concerned is FREE MONEY. It is not a loan. He as chairman does not have to pay it back. The company is therefore worth more because either the debt is reduced or there is money for investment in players or infrastructure. This is notional as SCFC s does not have a floating share price. If you were buying a share would you pay the same for a club shares with debts of £2m or a club with no debt. The notional club buyer would subtract the debt from the sale price. Some clubs are bought for £1 as the new owner pays by clearing historic debts. The Trust have 5% protected because they are unsophisticated and some might argue lazy. They decline to share the investment loan despite the £500 k settlement. The archetypal South Wales " jobs for the boys " culture in my eyes [Post edited 27 Mar 16:27]
|  |
|  |
| another 2 million invested on 16:30 - Mar 27 with 1093 views | SullutaCreturned |
| another 2 million invested on 15:59 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The extra £2m goes straight into the bank so is effectively as far as Coleman is concerned is FREE MONEY. It is not a loan. He as chairman does not have to pay it back. The company is therefore worth more because either the debt is reduced or there is money for investment in players or infrastructure. This is notional as SCFC s does not have a floating share price. If you were buying a share would you pay the same for a club shares with debts of £2m or a club with no debt. The notional club buyer would subtract the debt from the sale price. Some clubs are bought for £1 as the new owner pays by clearing historic debts. The Trust have 5% protected because they are unsophisticated and some might argue lazy. They decline to share the investment loan despite the £500 k settlement. The archetypal South Wales " jobs for the boys " culture in my eyes [Post edited 27 Mar 16:27]
|
What you say is only true if the money is invested in assets that improve our value.
However, if the 2 million is only used to pay day to day bills then no value is added and all that has happened is the owners have increased their percentage of the shares so if/when they sell they can take more money.
The chairman would never have to pay any loan back, or any debts he runs up in the clubs name, the club will always be laible for the debts. The chairman will continue to take his salary until the day he leaves.
You continue to make wild assumptions. |  | | |
| another 2 million invested on 16:39 - Mar 27 with 1081 views | Gwyn737 |
| another 2 million invested on 15:59 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The extra £2m goes straight into the bank so is effectively as far as Coleman is concerned is FREE MONEY. It is not a loan. He as chairman does not have to pay it back. The company is therefore worth more because either the debt is reduced or there is money for investment in players or infrastructure. This is notional as SCFC s does not have a floating share price. If you were buying a share would you pay the same for a club shares with debts of £2m or a club with no debt. The notional club buyer would subtract the debt from the sale price. Some clubs are bought for £1 as the new owner pays by clearing historic debts. The Trust have 5% protected because they are unsophisticated and some might argue lazy. They decline to share the investment loan despite the £500 k settlement. The archetypal South Wales " jobs for the boys " culture in my eyes [Post edited 27 Mar 16:27]
|
Have Morris’ shares been diluted?
That’s what I was getting at. | | | |
| another 2 million invested on 16:42 - Mar 27 with 1070 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 16:30 - Mar 27 by SullutaCreturned |
What you say is only true if the money is invested in assets that improve our value.
However, if the 2 million is only used to pay day to day bills then no value is added and all that has happened is the owners have increased their percentage of the shares so if/when they sell they can take more money.
The chairman would never have to pay any loan back, or any debts he runs up in the clubs name, the club will always be laible for the debts. The chairman will continue to take his salary until the day he leaves.
You continue to make wild assumptions. |
It is a forum reality when I give proof and evidence the answer includes a slur a or spin.. speculation by me becomes " making stuff up" . Being outnumbered by the long term regular forum divas with failed thinking becomes evidence of ReslovenSwan1 w being out of tune.
The club is better off with the £2m than without is so there is no reason for the overall notional share price to drop. The monthly loses are factored into the Swansea city share price valuation. | |
| |
| another 2 million invested on 16:53 - Mar 27 with 1062 views | Whiterockin |
| another 2 million invested on 16:39 - Mar 27 by Gwyn737 |
Have Morris’ shares been diluted?
That’s what I was getting at. |
Yes Gwyn. His original investment gave him a shareholding of 19.42% now after several rounds of dilution it is 14.2%. Don't let anyone try to convince you differently, this is 100% accurate. |  | | |
| another 2 million invested on 17:56 - Mar 27 with 1027 views | Gwyn737 |
| another 2 million invested on 16:53 - Mar 27 by Whiterockin |
Yes Gwyn. His original investment gave him a shareholding of 19.42% now after several rounds of dilution it is 14.2%. Don't let anyone try to convince you differently, this is 100% accurate. |
I thought so.
That’s why I gave a really simple example but that part of it was ignored. | | | |
| another 2 million invested on 18:11 - Mar 27 with 1003 views | Whiterockin |
| another 2 million invested on 17:56 - Mar 27 by Gwyn737 |
I thought so.
That’s why I gave a really simple example but that part of it was ignored. |
Always is mate, facts often make some back off. What I find rather disturbing is with the Morris investment being about £10M this would value the club at around £50M at the time of his investment. I really wonder exactly what is going on with the investment and diluting since. It does question the business sense and can't continue, unless there is an ulterior motive. [Post edited 27 Mar 18:11]
| | | |
| another 2 million invested on 19:13 - Mar 27 with 959 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 17:56 - Mar 27 by Gwyn737 |
I thought so.
That’s why I gave a really simple example but that part of it was ignored. |
Share price valuation can drop after dilution but it is not for certain. Your sum was a useful test but flawed from what I understood. At least you are thinking about it.
Say I owned 10% of a club worth £40m with debts of £2m. The value of my holding is £4m but I have a shared debt of £200k.
If the US investor put in the £2m and I decline to buy the new issued shares my share valuation will not drop but my percentage holding will. My £4m of shares is now only 9.52% of the club 4/42). My share of the debt has gone. The US guys have cleared my share of the debt and I have not paid a bean. I have paid my debt in % percentage holding.
Why should my share price drop? Hypothetically before I owned £4m worth of shares with a £200k debt. Now I won £4m of share with no debt. Which is better for me?
Share values vary every day and that depends on performance. An FA cup tie at Old Trafford would see the share price rise as would a run of 4 wins on the bounce and Wood signing a new four year deal.
I do not dodge anything. I am an experienced shareholder with 12 stocks and hold some funds. I keep it simple and medium risk. My Cable and Wireless shares were hammered by dilution because their management was useless. Rentokil on the other hand have been great.
Sometimes after a new issue of shares the overall share price drops because the new shares were issued at a PRICE BELOW the average daily price . For example Lloyds Bank. They have to price the new shares at a discount to attract retail and corporate buyers. For this reason they give existing shareholders the discount as well. If the existing shareholders do not buy the discounted shares they miss out.
In this case the Trust and Mr Morris declined to buy discounted shares. Both have money so that is their problem. Levien and co owned 69% and now own 72% after 8 years. I suggest to you they are not that concerned about getting to 75%. They are more concerned about keeping Mr Morris sweet and on board.
Please note I do not talk accountancy jargon. This is because I want to engage not intimidate. [Post edited 27 Mar 19:24]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| another 2 million invested on 19:43 - Mar 27 with 936 views | Whiterockin |
| another 2 million invested on 19:13 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Share price valuation can drop after dilution but it is not for certain. Your sum was a useful test but flawed from what I understood. At least you are thinking about it.
Say I owned 10% of a club worth £40m with debts of £2m. The value of my holding is £4m but I have a shared debt of £200k.
If the US investor put in the £2m and I decline to buy the new issued shares my share valuation will not drop but my percentage holding will. My £4m of shares is now only 9.52% of the club 4/42). My share of the debt has gone. The US guys have cleared my share of the debt and I have not paid a bean. I have paid my debt in % percentage holding.
Why should my share price drop? Hypothetically before I owned £4m worth of shares with a £200k debt. Now I won £4m of share with no debt. Which is better for me?
Share values vary every day and that depends on performance. An FA cup tie at Old Trafford would see the share price rise as would a run of 4 wins on the bounce and Wood signing a new four year deal.
I do not dodge anything. I am an experienced shareholder with 12 stocks and hold some funds. I keep it simple and medium risk. My Cable and Wireless shares were hammered by dilution because their management was useless. Rentokil on the other hand have been great.
Sometimes after a new issue of shares the overall share price drops because the new shares were issued at a PRICE BELOW the average daily price . For example Lloyds Bank. They have to price the new shares at a discount to attract retail and corporate buyers. For this reason they give existing shareholders the discount as well. If the existing shareholders do not buy the discounted shares they miss out.
In this case the Trust and Mr Morris declined to buy discounted shares. Both have money so that is their problem. Levien and co owned 69% and now own 72% after 8 years. I suggest to you they are not that concerned about getting to 75%. They are more concerned about keeping Mr Morris sweet and on board.
Please note I do not talk accountancy jargon. This is because I want to engage not intimidate. [Post edited 27 Mar 19:24]
|
Swansea Football LLC shareholding dropped to 64% when Morris invested and has risen since dilution.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-nigel-morris-10m [Post edited 27 Mar 19:44]
| | | |
| another 2 million invested on 19:49 - Mar 27 with 924 views | SullutaCreturned |
| another 2 million invested on 16:42 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is a forum reality when I give proof and evidence the answer includes a slur a or spin.. speculation by me becomes " making stuff up" . Being outnumbered by the long term regular forum divas with failed thinking becomes evidence of ReslovenSwan1 w being out of tune.
The club is better off with the £2m than without is so there is no reason for the overall notional share price to drop. The monthly loses are factored into the Swansea city share price valuation. |
I hardly ever see any proof or evidence, mostly all I see from you is speculation presented as fact.
When asked a question you go off on a tangent that often involves criticisng others, you hardly make a post that isn't derogatory to other Swansea supporters so don't moan when you get some criticism back. Don't give it if you can't take it.
Edit, I need to remind you that when it comes to slurs, what you said about the Wrexham trust becoming tired and disillusioned and selling for pennies is totally wrong. as it says in this report, the Wrexham trust wasn't even looking to sell,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56007474#:~:text=Hollywood%20actor%20Ryan%20Reyn
So take this as a slur if you like but you were totally and completely wrong, you presented a "fact" about another set of fans that was and is untrue. Not happy to only spread slurs about Swansea fans, you tell lies about Wrexham supporters trust too. [Post edited 27 Mar 19:59]
| | | |
| another 2 million invested on 20:25 - Mar 27 with 879 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 19:49 - Mar 27 by SullutaCreturned |
I hardly ever see any proof or evidence, mostly all I see from you is speculation presented as fact.
When asked a question you go off on a tangent that often involves criticisng others, you hardly make a post that isn't derogatory to other Swansea supporters so don't moan when you get some criticism back. Don't give it if you can't take it.
Edit, I need to remind you that when it comes to slurs, what you said about the Wrexham trust becoming tired and disillusioned and selling for pennies is totally wrong. as it says in this report, the Wrexham trust wasn't even looking to sell,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56007474#:~:text=Hollywood%20actor%20Ryan%20Reyn
So take this as a slur if you like but you were totally and completely wrong, you presented a "fact" about another set of fans that was and is untrue. Not happy to only spread slurs about Swansea fans, you tell lies about Wrexham supporters trust too. [Post edited 27 Mar 19:59]
|
Wrexham Trust were struggling week on week to pay the bills and were very happy to hand over the reign to benefactor Americans with a plan. They were seduced by the stardust n doubt . I see not reason why they should sell the lease they have on the Stok Ras.
It looks have they will sell the lease and wind up the WST trust having had vote on the matter.
https://wst.org.uk/?p=1856
"What do you want R and R. Yes sir whatever you want guys". After 10 years of struggling paying the bills they have had a guts full and you can take the lot including their valuable lease hold rights.
I dared to criticise the 1000 members of the Trust who allowed a chance to sell 1% -20% of their club holding for a massive £1m. per 1%. What were they thinking? The fact is they were not engaged. It was not how I see an ideal democratic body working.
You will note I do not criticise individuals even you. I will not tolerate ethnic slurs directed at my people by seedy blokes high on alcohol or narcotics of some description. These low lifes are defended on here for some reason. [Post edited 27 Mar 20:30]
| |
| |
| another 2 million invested on 20:37 - Mar 27 with 856 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 16:39 - Mar 27 by Gwyn737 |
Have Morris’ shares been diluted?
That’s what I was getting at. |
Depends what you mean.
Morris's investment in $ or £ is unchanged depending on the club performance not share issues. If the new shares are at a discounted price then the overall share price might drop as a result of this.
His percentage holding has dropped slightly. The investors in the £2m will get their money back at the point of sale. This is my understanding. | |
| |
| another 2 million invested on 20:40 - Mar 27 with 845 views | Whiterockin |
| another 2 million invested on 20:37 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Depends what you mean.
Morris's investment in $ or £ is unchanged depending on the club performance not share issues. If the new shares are at a discounted price then the overall share price might drop as a result of this.
His percentage holding has dropped slightly. The investors in the £2m will get their money back at the point of sale. This is my understanding. |
You really haven't a clue about dilution. | | | |
| another 2 million invested on 20:59 - Mar 27 with 796 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 20:40 - Mar 27 by Whiterockin |
You really haven't a clue about dilution. |
Another one line special. Not good enough. I have my own shares and seen them diluted. The money I invested was added to the company valuation. The success of the investment depended on the markets.
Dilution refers to dilution of the % share holding not the dilution of the actual share price which is notionally unchanged.
If the £2m was used directly to buy Ronald how does that lower the Trust's share price? He looks like a £5m player all day long. | |
| |
| another 2 million invested on 21:22 - Mar 27 with 774 views | Whiterockin |
| another 2 million invested on 20:59 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Another one line special. Not good enough. I have my own shares and seen them diluted. The money I invested was added to the company valuation. The success of the investment depended on the markets.
Dilution refers to dilution of the % share holding not the dilution of the actual share price which is notionally unchanged.
If the £2m was used directly to buy Ronald how does that lower the Trust's share price? He looks like a £5m player all day long. |
I posted a link further up the thread which explained dilution to you.
It is impossible to quantify player values into the equation because that has no bearing on shares and dilution, only on company assets. Its quite complicated because for every Ronald there is a Yates. Adding to the equation and to complicate it further there is little clarity from the club and very few things are actually announced. The last round of dilution was announced by the trust not the club. There has been no announcements regarding Key have we actually paid for him and how much. Have we reached an agreement with Southampton for Martin and his team. Has an agreement been made with Duff and his team, has it been paid. All these things impact the club balance sheet but have no baring on dilution and share percentages, totally different entity's. | | | |
| another 2 million invested on 21:51 - Mar 27 with 729 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 21:22 - Mar 27 by Whiterockin |
I posted a link further up the thread which explained dilution to you.
It is impossible to quantify player values into the equation because that has no bearing on shares and dilution, only on company assets. Its quite complicated because for every Ronald there is a Yates. Adding to the equation and to complicate it further there is little clarity from the club and very few things are actually announced. The last round of dilution was announced by the trust not the club. There has been no announcements regarding Key have we actually paid for him and how much. Have we reached an agreement with Southampton for Martin and his team. Has an agreement been made with Duff and his team, has it been paid. All these things impact the club balance sheet but have no baring on dilution and share percentages, totally different entity's. |
I read it and understood it no problem. It did not change my views. Sure investing new money can reduce share prices but that is controlled by market sentiment. it is not not automatic. The intention is not to devalue existing shareholders in any way.
If the new shares are significantly reduced then this reduces the value of the existing shares as determined by the market. This could even be the trading houses selling existing shares at a higher price and using it to buy the cheaper shares. Selling deflates prices.
Results are the key and the probably of promotion. Duff was dispatched once it was clear he could not deliver. He was not a Coleman type person I suspect. Somewhat deadpan. Share prices work on confidence and perception and the future. Ronald has improved sentiment. Watson's performance is key to this. Bad signing cost confidence in him and good signing the reverse.
Coleman is keeping thing under wraps inside the boardroom. | |
| |
| another 2 million invested on 22:01 - Mar 27 with 711 views | SullutaCreturned |
| another 2 million invested on 20:25 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Wrexham Trust were struggling week on week to pay the bills and were very happy to hand over the reign to benefactor Americans with a plan. They were seduced by the stardust n doubt . I see not reason why they should sell the lease they have on the Stok Ras.
It looks have they will sell the lease and wind up the WST trust having had vote on the matter.
https://wst.org.uk/?p=1856
"What do you want R and R. Yes sir whatever you want guys". After 10 years of struggling paying the bills they have had a guts full and you can take the lot including their valuable lease hold rights.
I dared to criticise the 1000 members of the Trust who allowed a chance to sell 1% -20% of their club holding for a massive £1m. per 1%. What were they thinking? The fact is they were not engaged. It was not how I see an ideal democratic body working.
You will note I do not criticise individuals even you. I will not tolerate ethnic slurs directed at my people by seedy blokes high on alcohol or narcotics of some description. These low lifes are defended on here for some reason. [Post edited 27 Mar 20:30]
|
Ok, youwere wrong, the WST stated they were not for sale but were approached and put it to their members.
They are sellingt the lease with covenants to rotect the assets, they are winding up their assets but I can't see where it says the trust itself is winding up.
Now this but...
"What do you want R and R. Yes sir whatever you want guys". After 10 years of struggling paying the bills they have had a guts full and you can take the lot including their valuable lease hold rights.
That's just something you've made up again, isn't it. It's not an assumption or speculation, it is juts pure fiction.
Lastly, in your head insulting an individual isn't right yet it's ok to insult thousands of people in one go, what planet are you on? Not that I have actually insulted you because calling a post utter nonsense isn't a personal insult, or is it in your world?
Maybe I should insult you, maybe you deserve it for slandering a lare number of people you never met.
My opinion is, you're a space cadet. | | | |
| another 2 million invested on 22:23 - Mar 27 with 707 views | Whiterockin |
| another 2 million invested on 21:51 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I read it and understood it no problem. It did not change my views. Sure investing new money can reduce share prices but that is controlled by market sentiment. it is not not automatic. The intention is not to devalue existing shareholders in any way.
If the new shares are significantly reduced then this reduces the value of the existing shares as determined by the market. This could even be the trading houses selling existing shares at a higher price and using it to buy the cheaper shares. Selling deflates prices.
Results are the key and the probably of promotion. Duff was dispatched once it was clear he could not deliver. He was not a Coleman type person I suspect. Somewhat deadpan. Share prices work on confidence and perception and the future. Ronald has improved sentiment. Watson's performance is key to this. Bad signing cost confidence in him and good signing the reverse.
Coleman is keeping thing under wraps inside the boardroom. |
Dilution is all about share holding and percentage of total shares. Yes it reduces the value of the shares at that moment in time, but this will change daily possibly hourly depending on company performance.
If you take Morris as an example. He bought 19% of the club shares for £10M, making the club value about £50M. Since then Swansea Football LLC has diluted his shares to 14% by purchasing more shares released by the club. He has not lost or gained because he has not sold his shares, only then could you judge.
Since Morris bought his shares Swansea Football LLC have bought £10M , £3.5 and £2M of shares. Coleman and Cravatt have apparently invested, but that is through Swansea Football LLC. Do you not think it slightly strange that a business valued at £50M at the time of the Morris investment has £15.5M invested through share release and dilution. Year ending 2022 we lost £13M as a club, if we are losing the amount that has been invested through share release we are nailed on to be over the FFP limit. Or is the investment for another reason and we are not losing as much as invested. [Post edited 27 Mar 22:27]
| | | |
| another 2 million invested on 23:22 - Mar 27 with 677 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 22:01 - Mar 27 by SullutaCreturned |
Ok, youwere wrong, the WST stated they were not for sale but were approached and put it to their members.
They are sellingt the lease with covenants to rotect the assets, they are winding up their assets but I can't see where it says the trust itself is winding up.
Now this but...
"What do you want R and R. Yes sir whatever you want guys". After 10 years of struggling paying the bills they have had a guts full and you can take the lot including their valuable lease hold rights.
That's just something you've made up again, isn't it. It's not an assumption or speculation, it is juts pure fiction.
Lastly, in your head insulting an individual isn't right yet it's ok to insult thousands of people in one go, what planet are you on? Not that I have actually insulted you because calling a post utter nonsense isn't a personal insult, or is it in your world?
Maybe I should insult you, maybe you deserve it for slandering a lare number of people you never met.
My opinion is, you're a space cadet. |
Another day another insult. Space cadet. Not sure about that.
In 2016 the Trust owned 21% of the club and two venture capitalists owned 20% of the club. The club was making money in the Premier league
In 2016 the two venture capitalists (who said they wanted out) walked away to France and South Africa with £20 million between them selling their 20% of shares. With a decent investment bond they will have almost doubled that return since then.
The Trust members supposedly looking after the Trust 's best interests were happy that their shares were not up for sale. They had not apparently heeded the warning from Huw Jenkins in 2014 or so that new investment was required.(dilution). They now own 10% of the club worth about £4m and £1m in the bank. The club is losing money. 5% ownership is on the horizon.
The members did a bad job in 2016 and are now shrinking. Inflation, legal bills, falling membership fees and dilution. 1000 members cannot be wrong in your world. The majority is alway right. Its a fallacy.
The members must know thy have not performed well over the last decade. None will admit it of course. Lessons learned. None.
I do not know what Wrexham WST have planed but it sounds as if they are handing in their stirrups. They are done and dusted. Reynolds and co were probably advised not to let them stay as owners even 1%. A wise call I must say. | |
| |
| another 2 million invested on 07:06 - Mar 28 with 636 views | jackrmee |
| another 2 million invested on 16:30 - Mar 27 by SullutaCreturned |
What you say is only true if the money is invested in assets that improve our value.
However, if the 2 million is only used to pay day to day bills then no value is added and all that has happened is the owners have increased their percentage of the shares so if/when they sell they can take more money.
The chairman would never have to pay any loan back, or any debts he runs up in the clubs name, the club will always be laible for the debts. The chairman will continue to take his salary until the day he leaves.
You continue to make wild assumptions. |
Probably pays Gude, Coleman. £2m should just about cover it. |  |
| |
| another 2 million invested on 07:54 - Mar 28 with 611 views | Whiterockin |
| another 2 million invested on 23:22 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Another day another insult. Space cadet. Not sure about that.
In 2016 the Trust owned 21% of the club and two venture capitalists owned 20% of the club. The club was making money in the Premier league
In 2016 the two venture capitalists (who said they wanted out) walked away to France and South Africa with £20 million between them selling their 20% of shares. With a decent investment bond they will have almost doubled that return since then.
The Trust members supposedly looking after the Trust 's best interests were happy that their shares were not up for sale. They had not apparently heeded the warning from Huw Jenkins in 2014 or so that new investment was required.(dilution). They now own 10% of the club worth about £4m and £1m in the bank. The club is losing money. 5% ownership is on the horizon.
The members did a bad job in 2016 and are now shrinking. Inflation, legal bills, falling membership fees and dilution. 1000 members cannot be wrong in your world. The majority is alway right. Its a fallacy.
The members must know thy have not performed well over the last decade. None will admit it of course. Lessons learned. None.
I do not know what Wrexham WST have planed but it sounds as if they are handing in their stirrups. They are done and dusted. Reynolds and co were probably advised not to let them stay as owners even 1%. A wise call I must say. |
The club made a £14.6M loss in 2016. I don't see how you can call that making money. Totally wiping out the £1M profit the previous two seasons and showing a loss of £12M over three.
Just stop making things up and trying to post them as fact. | | | |
| another 2 million invested on 08:08 - Mar 28 with 589 views | QJumpingJack |
| another 2 million invested on 23:22 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Another day another insult. Space cadet. Not sure about that.
In 2016 the Trust owned 21% of the club and two venture capitalists owned 20% of the club. The club was making money in the Premier league
In 2016 the two venture capitalists (who said they wanted out) walked away to France and South Africa with £20 million between them selling their 20% of shares. With a decent investment bond they will have almost doubled that return since then.
The Trust members supposedly looking after the Trust 's best interests were happy that their shares were not up for sale. They had not apparently heeded the warning from Huw Jenkins in 2014 or so that new investment was required.(dilution). They now own 10% of the club worth about £4m and £1m in the bank. The club is losing money. 5% ownership is on the horizon.
The members did a bad job in 2016 and are now shrinking. Inflation, legal bills, falling membership fees and dilution. 1000 members cannot be wrong in your world. The majority is alway right. Its a fallacy.
The members must know thy have not performed well over the last decade. None will admit it of course. Lessons learned. None.
I do not know what Wrexham WST have planed but it sounds as if they are handing in their stirrups. They are done and dusted. Reynolds and co were probably advised not to let them stay as owners even 1%. A wise call I must say. |
the only source you ever quote is from WalesOnlne - and they themselves have stories which have been muddled depending on who was feeding them the stories..... | | | |
| another 2 million invested on 09:25 - Mar 28 with 549 views | SullutaCreturned |
| another 2 million invested on 23:22 - Mar 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Another day another insult. Space cadet. Not sure about that.
In 2016 the Trust owned 21% of the club and two venture capitalists owned 20% of the club. The club was making money in the Premier league
In 2016 the two venture capitalists (who said they wanted out) walked away to France and South Africa with £20 million between them selling their 20% of shares. With a decent investment bond they will have almost doubled that return since then.
The Trust members supposedly looking after the Trust 's best interests were happy that their shares were not up for sale. They had not apparently heeded the warning from Huw Jenkins in 2014 or so that new investment was required.(dilution). They now own 10% of the club worth about £4m and £1m in the bank. The club is losing money. 5% ownership is on the horizon.
The members did a bad job in 2016 and are now shrinking. Inflation, legal bills, falling membership fees and dilution. 1000 members cannot be wrong in your world. The majority is alway right. Its a fallacy.
The members must know thy have not performed well over the last decade. None will admit it of course. Lessons learned. None.
I do not know what Wrexham WST have planed but it sounds as if they are handing in their stirrups. They are done and dusted. Reynolds and co were probably advised not to let them stay as owners even 1%. A wise call I must say. |
As I said to you previously, nothing I have said to you is an insult, or at least it doesnt break site rules and it is far better (in my opinion) than continually denigrating people by the thousand, which is what you do.
What did any of my post have to do with SCST? This is why you're a space cadet, no matter what is posted you don't see the reality and you twist it to attack the usual object of your ire.
Where have I ever said the trust members cannot be wrong? That's a lie. Where have I ever said the majority is aways right, another lie. Stop making things up.
What the majority vote for is what they should get whether it is right or wrong, that's how the democratic process works, the majority get what they want even if it's a complete farce.
You make another assumption about Wrexham which I believe to be false. I'm fairly sure Reynolds has said the WST is an important part of the future at Wrexham though I stand to be proven wrong. | | | |
| another 2 million invested on 09:26 - Mar 28 with 549 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| another 2 million invested on 07:54 - Mar 28 by Whiterockin |
The club made a £14.6M loss in 2016. I don't see how you can call that making money. Totally wiping out the £1M profit the previous two seasons and showing a loss of £12M over three.
Just stop making things up and trying to post them as fact. |
The point I was making was that the club was over a reasonable period profitable with strong assets. Now it struggles to brea even with little playing assets. Anyone can Google a example of a single season where this was not the case. Swansea generally invested potential profits while in the PL building Fairwood. Creating asset values not profits. Anyone can Google on years figures to prove something or other and make another cheap shot comment. | |
| |
| another 2 million invested on 09:42 - Mar 28 with 538 views | Whiterockin |
| another 2 million invested on 09:26 - Mar 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The point I was making was that the club was over a reasonable period profitable with strong assets. Now it struggles to brea even with little playing assets. Anyone can Google a example of a single season where this was not the case. Swansea generally invested potential profits while in the PL building Fairwood. Creating asset values not profits. Anyone can Google on years figures to prove something or other and make another cheap shot comment. |
Total rubbish by you again. It was a significant season the one before Swansea Football LLC bought into the club. When everyone is proving you wrong anyone with sense would analyse what they post. Then again if someone lacks any sense........ | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
