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.
Hi folks, this is clearly a topic many enjoy commenting on, but please remain consistent in your responses avoiding potential slurs on any characters involved and remain objective.
Thanks ðŸ‘
This post has been edited by an administrator
Planet Swans Prediction League Winner Season 2013-14. Runner up 2014_15.
I wonder whether Mindi and the other hedge funders were told that the club has been sold behind the Trust's back and that this could result in legal action in the future or was that salient point kept from potential "investors"?
I wonder what Mindi's lawyers think of the situation now? Maybe they'll join in the legal action for being kept in the dark?
Planet Swans Prediction League Winner Season 2013-14. Runner up 2014_15.
On your first point, why did Jenkins sign off false boars minutes? Breaking corporate governance was as "he cared" about the club, yeah?
[Post edited 14 Jun 2021 12:23]
The rest of his points are washed away by the one basic fact. They made a LOT of money. It covers all the rest of it. They left a few percent of shares in so they could still say they co-owned the club, in my opinion, it was an ego thing.
I have no prob;em with the current owners nor withthe vast majority of what the previous lot did BUT their poor financial judgement the last 2 years and the lies and deceit around the sale are enough to draw criticism.
Mandi has invested money buying club shares in 2016. Estimated at about £1m. The SCST bought club shares for £200k in 2002. Mandi has invested 5 times as much in club shares as the SCST and took out much less in dividends. This is just a fact.
THe SCST net contributtion to the club is around MINUS £400K-600k over the years as they took dividends back in 2014 or so. Their holding is too big so they cannot invest.
Out of interest how do you know how much Kalling spent then? Don't think it's been publicly released has it?
Ah well you've changed your point now. Yes I agree, Mindy Kalling may we'll have spent more money buying Swansea City football club shares. That is very different to what you originally said.
Mandi has invested money buying club shares in 2016. Estimated at about £1m. The SCST bought club shares for £200k in 2002. Mandi has invested 5 times as much in club shares as the SCST and took out much less in dividends. This is just a fact.
THe SCST net contributtion to the club is around MINUS £400K-600k over the years as they took dividends back in 2014 or so. Their holding is too big so they cannot invest.
No where near what the lovely Mindi invested. As far as I am concernned she is very welcome in Swansea.
She doesn't seem to want to come to Swansea though so your welcome would be wasted. Don't think she's ever been here and didn't even want it to be known she was a shareholder (it's possible she didn't even know).
By your logic I assume you believe Morgan and Jenkins should leave the club then? Neither by your maths have invested as much as lovely Mindy and don't seem interested in doing so now either.
I wonder whether Mindi and the other hedge funders were told that the club has been sold behind the Trust's back and that this could result in legal action in the future or was that salient point kept from potential "investors"?
I wonder what Mindi's lawyers think of the situation now? Maybe they'll join in the legal action for being kept in the dark?
Well I have posed this question previously.
The American owners have stated they weren't aware of the existence of a shareholders agreement. Assuming there is one, could there be recourse against the people who sold them their shares for selling under false pretences?
Has anyone actually worked out how much US investment it needed to reduce the SCST from 21% to say 1%? Lets assume the club is worth £40m. The SCST is therefore worth about £8m
If the SCST is 1% then I reckon it could be about £792m that is needed to dilute them. Please correct me if I am wrong. I need to understand this claim. £800m?
You are assuming value remains even though shareholding decreases. Every penny put in to the club at less than 2016 value is value dilutive as well as % dilutive.
If the selling shareholders sold at £1m per 1% as an easy example, the Trust’s holding at the date of sale was £21m.
If money is now invested with a value less than that, it dilutes the Trust‘s value very quickly.
So if, again an example, say there were 100 shares previously and 20 new shares are issued, the Trust then has a holding of 17.5% (% diluted) as it now holds 21 of 120 shares rather than 21 of 100. That’s % dilution.
If the new shares are bought at the same £1m per share, although the Trust’s holding is less, the value of the holding is the same. It’s now a total value of £120m (the original value and the extra £20m investment) and the Trust owns 17.5%, so still £21m value.
If the new shares are bought at anything less, the value is diluted.
Say, as another example, the club issues shares where it values the club pre money at £40m and £10m is put in. The post money valuation is £50m. The ‘new investment’ bought 20% of the club (£10m of the total £50m). The Trust holds 16.8% (the original holding is now only 80% of its previous amount) and the Implied value of that is £8.4m (16.8% of £50m).
If new shares were invested at a total club valuation of £10m, the dilution would be even more dramatic. The Trust could get whittled away very very quickly.
And the value, of course, is not set by the Trust! If the Trust could invest at the ‘new value’ it could protect itself. But it can’t.
Just to add as well, people associated with the trust must have invested literally thousands of hours of unpaid work and effort from the days of being instrumental in getting rid of Petty to now, all for the good of the club.
While Kalling made 1 (relatively small for her means) transaction purely to further enrich herself.
You are assuming value remains even though shareholding decreases. Every penny put in to the club at less than 2016 value is value dilutive as well as % dilutive.
If the selling shareholders sold at £1m per 1% as an easy example, the Trust’s holding at the date of sale was £21m.
If money is now invested with a value less than that, it dilutes the Trust‘s value very quickly.
So if, again an example, say there were 100 shares previously and 20 new shares are issued, the Trust then has a holding of 17.5% (% diluted) as it now holds 21 of 120 shares rather than 21 of 100. That’s % dilution.
If the new shares are bought at the same £1m per share, although the Trust’s holding is less, the value of the holding is the same. It’s now a total value of £120m (the original value and the extra £20m investment) and the Trust owns 17.5%, so still £21m value.
If the new shares are bought at anything less, the value is diluted.
Say, as another example, the club issues shares where it values the club pre money at £40m and £10m is put in. The post money valuation is £50m. The ‘new investment’ bought 20% of the club (£10m of the total £50m). The Trust holds 16.8% (the original holding is now only 80% of its previous amount) and the Implied value of that is £8.4m (16.8% of £50m).
If new shares were invested at a total club valuation of £10m, the dilution would be even more dramatic. The Trust could get whittled away very very quickly.
And the value, of course, is not set by the Trust! If the Trust could invest at the ‘new value’ it could protect itself. But it can’t.
Thankyou for your explanation. it is in line with the way I am thinking. It will take a massive outside investment to reduce the SCST holding to around 1% and it simply is not going to happen even in league 2.
If Swansea fall down the leagues say to league 2 the SCST can easily increase its holding as the shares will be substantially cheaper. For a club worth perhaps £5m each 1% share would be worth £50,000 well within their capabiities.
In league 2 and the SCST still own say 20%.. At a £5m valuation the SCST valuation is £1m. For that to be diluted to 1% the outside investors need to pump £95m into the club. The SCST statement is misleading fans with little arithmetical background in my opinion. It says their holding can be diluted easily to nothing. This is a false as far as i can see.
She doesn't seem to want to come to Swansea though so your welcome would be wasted. Don't think she's ever been here and didn't even want it to be known she was a shareholder (it's possible she didn't even know).
By your logic I assume you believe Morgan and Jenkins should leave the club then? Neither by your maths have invested as much as lovely Mindy and don't seem interested in doing so now either.
Pretty sure she openly said she was an investor and believes in the team fully.
I’m sure she was on some talk show.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
Thankyou for your explanation. it is in line with the way I am thinking. It will take a massive outside investment to reduce the SCST holding to around 1% and it simply is not going to happen even in league 2.
If Swansea fall down the leagues say to league 2 the SCST can easily increase its holding as the shares will be substantially cheaper. For a club worth perhaps £5m each 1% share would be worth £50,000 well within their capabiities.
In league 2 and the SCST still own say 20%.. At a £5m valuation the SCST valuation is £1m. For that to be diluted to 1% the outside investors need to pump £95m into the club. The SCST statement is misleading fans with little arithmetical background in my opinion. It says their holding can be diluted easily to nothing. This is a false as far as i can see.
It’s not in line with your thinking.
In fact, it shows your thinking to be flawed.
You’ve just repeated that flawed thinking again.
You are forgetting that the ‘value‘ is set by those investing. It’s quite easy to see how the Trust could be diluted away. As I tried to explain.
One more go.
Say the majority owners decide to invest and value the club at £5m pre money (of which they currently have £4m’s worth using your example. They invest £20m. The club is now ‘worth’ £25m of which the Trust has £1m and the majority has £24m or 96%. The Trust now only has 4%. It’s cost £20m to ‘get rid of the Trust’. Or to reduce the Trust from 20% to 4%. If the owners decide to value the club at £2m and invest £20m the Trust is left with 1.8%.
Quite some way from £95m or your earlier suggestion of £700m or whatever amount you came up with.
You are the one trying to mislead. The Trust has no mechanism to force the owners to accept Trust investment at the value of £2m as there aren’t enough Trust votes to prevent a special resolution being passed to waive pre emption rights. It would just fall into the category of unfair treatment of the minority and court. Oh wait...
Pretty sure she openly said she was an investor and believes in the team fully.
I’m sure she was on some talk show.
Yes that was after the list of shareholders was discovered and reported in the press. The information certainly wasn't volunteered. So she was asked and she pretended to be interested for those 2 minutes. Unfortunate really because such a big star could possibly get us a lot of interest and publicity. But she seems indifferent to it at best. A stark contrast to the new Wrexham owners.
Yes that was after the list of shareholders was discovered and reported in the press. The information certainly wasn't volunteered. So she was asked and she pretended to be interested for those 2 minutes. Unfortunate really because such a big star could possibly get us a lot of interest and publicity. But she seems indifferent to it at best. A stark contrast to the new Wrexham owners.
That’s not to say it was her that didn’t want people to know. It would be that the investment company were not at liberty to reveal their clients details without permission.
I think it’s unfair to say she pretended to be interested. She’s hardly an owner, she’s an incredibly small minority shareholder. She may not own more than 1% or 2%.
Reynolds and Elhenney own 100% of Wrexham, it’s essentially their company.
Swansea Independent Poster of the Year 2021 and 2022.
That’s not to say it was her that didn’t want people to know. It would be that the investment company were not at liberty to reveal their clients details without permission.
I think it’s unfair to say she pretended to be interested. She’s hardly an owner, she’s an incredibly small minority shareholder. She may not own more than 1% or 2%.
Reynolds and Elhenney own 100% of Wrexham, it’s essentially their company.
Yea don't disagree with any of that. And I don't think any of what you've written there is actually at odds with what I've posted. But if you're first paragraph was correct we would probably have heard about some legal action about it by now against the outlets who reported it.
She could at least mention us occasionally or wear a shirt or tweet or something though couldn't she? She is certainly the most high profile of the whole consortium after all. 1 public mention of the club ever?
But she doesn't have to, that's her choice. But its easy to see why fans are a bit bemused, confused, slightly amused in a black comedic sense by her 'involvement'.
And comparing her input to that of the trust is just completely laughable.
That’s not to say it was her that didn’t want people to know. It would be that the investment company were not at liberty to reveal their clients details without permission.
I think it’s unfair to say she pretended to be interested. She’s hardly an owner, she’s an incredibly small minority shareholder. She may not own more than 1% or 2%.
Reynolds and Elhenney own 100% of Wrexham, it’s essentially their company.
She WAS an investor in a fund at that point. She may be or she may not be now. The investors in that fund seem to have certainly changed over time as various new names crop up from time to time who were not part of the original grouping. People go in and out of these vehicles all the time.
No one knows. The fund (Swansea Football LLC) is owned in a Delaware which does not divulge such information.
She isn’t a shareholder in the club by the way. She may be a shareholder in, or investor in a fund that’s a shareholder in, Swansea Football LLC but she certainly is not a shareholder in the club. They are listed. As the club is not based in Delaware so the list is freely available at Companies House.
You are forgetting that the ‘value‘ is set by those investing. It’s quite easy to see how the Trust could be diluted away. As I tried to explain.
One more go.
Say the majority owners decide to invest and value the club at £5m pre money (of which they currently have £4m’s worth using your example. They invest £20m. The club is now ‘worth’ £25m of which the Trust has £1m and the majority has £24m or 96%. The Trust now only has 4%. It’s cost £20m to ‘get rid of the Trust’. Or to reduce the Trust from 20% to 4%. If the owners decide to value the club at £2m and invest £20m the Trust is left with 1.8%.
Quite some way from £95m or your earlier suggestion of £700m or whatever amount you came up with.
You are the one trying to mislead. The Trust has no mechanism to force the owners to accept Trust investment at the value of £2m as there aren’t enough Trust votes to prevent a special resolution being passed to waive pre emption rights. It would just fall into the category of unfair treatment of the minority and court. Oh wait...
[Post edited 14 Jun 2021 15:36]
But I was not talking about 4% I was talking about 1%. Why 1%? Well 1% is closer to the "nothing at all" quoted in the statement. To dilute the SCST shares to 1% will take much more than your paltry £20m.
Of course if the US people value the club at £2m in the league 2. 1% will cost £20,000 and the SCST can spend £420,000 to buy 21% and maintain its holding. They have the money in the bank currently to invest in the club. This is what they should be doing. Obviously this is quite straight forward in a friendly constructive relationship.
I have seen no example of any investor piutting £20m into a league 2 club. The Wrexham big shots are intending blowing away their cometition with £2m in the National league.
The SCST are architects of their own downfall in effect. 21% of a Premeir League football team with no money in the bank. Dilution was inevitable sooner or later. 21% was way too big a holding once the club left league 1.
Yea don't disagree with any of that. And I don't think any of what you've written there is actually at odds with what I've posted. But if you're first paragraph was correct we would probably have heard about some legal action about it by now against the outlets who reported it.
She could at least mention us occasionally or wear a shirt or tweet or something though couldn't she? She is certainly the most high profile of the whole consortium after all. 1 public mention of the club ever?
But she doesn't have to, that's her choice. But its easy to see why fans are a bit bemused, confused, slightly amused in a black comedic sense by her 'involvement'.
And comparing her input to that of the trust is just completely laughable.
Its not laughable it comical in fact. She has invested in an organisation than invests in Swansea city. She has put in 5 times more cash than the SCST have ever invested in Swansea over the last 20 years.
Its not laughable it comical in fact. She has invested in an organisation than invests in Swansea city. She has put in 5 times more cash than the SCST have ever invested in Swansea over the last 20 years.
That's patently false. Even if you do know how much she actually paid for her shares originally.
She's connected to people who've loaned the club money at a premium interest rate. That's the reality of it.
Its not laughable it comical in fact. She has invested in an organisation than invests in Swansea city. She has put in 5 times more cash than the SCST have ever invested in Swansea over the last 20 years.
True but taking absolutely no account of the context on the investment, she invested into a fund buying an established Premiership club with Sky money rolling in year upon year vs our old owners who invested £50K in cash into a club that was literally on it’s last legs & on the verge of administration.
I know who was taking the real risk & it wasn’t your American friend.
That's patently false. Even if you do know how much she actually paid for her shares originally.
She's connected to people who've loaned the club money at a premium interest rate. That's the reality of it.
[Post edited 14 Jun 2021 18:22]
The idea of a clubs football trust is to amass funds to keep for a rainy day, should the club fall on hard times, not to invest into the club for everyday running costs or transfer funds. Some just want to keep rehashing the nonsense that the Trust refused to sell their shareholding, which is completely untrue, the Trust carried out due diligence on the first yanks that wanted to buy the club and rightly decided against them, the then majority owners weren't gonna be out done a second time and went completely behind the backs of the Trust in selling to Levien and Kaplan, the sale was all about self interest first and foremost. We've been over this time and time and time again etc, etc And we still got people who will not accept it, because they don't want to, for reasons only known to them. Hope the truth all comes out, with this court case and then we'll all know the truth.
The idea of a clubs football trust is to amass funds to keep for a rainy day, should the club fall on hard times, not to invest into the club for everyday running costs or transfer funds. Some just want to keep rehashing the nonsense that the Trust refused to sell their shareholding, which is completely untrue, the Trust carried out due diligence on the first yanks that wanted to buy the club and rightly decided against them, the then majority owners weren't gonna be out done a second time and went completely behind the backs of the Trust in selling to Levien and Kaplan, the sale was all about self interest first and foremost. We've been over this time and time and time again etc, etc And we still got people who will not accept it, because they don't want to, for reasons only known to them. Hope the truth all comes out, with this court case and then we'll all know the truth.
I’m certain it won’t get there.
A great believer in taking anything you like to wherever you want to.
Its not laughable it comical in fact. She has invested in an organisation than invests in Swansea city. She has put in 5 times more cash than the SCST have ever invested in Swansea over the last 20 years.
Apples with apples old chap. Or have you run out of things that your mates want you to post but have been proven for the bullshìt that they were?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
