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.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:11 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
Open minded is good. I think we all should be. Some will be put off by the prospect of anyone coming in, which I think is the wrong approach.
However I can't agree that anyone coming in will, without exception, always have the best interests of the club at heart. They'll have their own interests and, as we've seen with the likes of Villa all too graphically, these don't always tie in with the fans interests. Ironically Lerner's probably been merely a case of mismanagement rather than anything dodgy.
So yeah, open minded is good. Closed eyes less so.
When Lerner first took over at Villa he was adored. He backed management heavily in the transfer market and gave their main shirt sponsorship to a local charity for free. It's when that heavy spending still got them nowhere that the problems started.
Think it's more a case of disillusionment leading to disinterest and all the attendant issues that arise as a result rather than anything approaching malice.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:18 - Apr 11 with 1210 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:11 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
Open minded is good. I think we all should be. Some will be put off by the prospect of anyone coming in, which I think is the wrong approach.
However I can't agree that anyone coming in will, without exception, always have the best interests of the club at heart. They'll have their own interests and, as we've seen with the likes of Villa all too graphically, these don't always tie in with the fans interests. Ironically Lerner's probably been merely a case of mismanagement rather than anything dodgy.
So yeah, open minded is good. Closed eyes less so.
I understand the negativity. The 2 watch areas are:
1. Loss of interest and an inability to move the club on in a reasonable timeframe (Villa) 2. Incompetence (Blackburn)
From a top level perspective, the fans/club and owners ambitions (particularly new owners who have invested) are generally aligned. Successful team = Financial Reward
That balanced equation is why we should be positive about this (Particulary in our case as - dare I say it - success for us is relative) - as long as we don't encounter either point 1 or 2 from above....
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:18 - Apr 11 by Dr_Winston
When Lerner first took over at Villa he was adored. He backed management heavily in the transfer market and gave their main shirt sponsorship to a local charity for free. It's when that heavy spending still got them nowhere that the problems started.
Think it's more a case of disillusionment leading to disinterest and all the attendant issues that arise as a result rather than anything approaching malice.
Yes tend to agree which is why I went down the mismanagement road. Which is a road more likely to be followed when the people in charge don't have the interests of the club at heart.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:18 - Apr 11 by EasternJack
I understand the negativity. The 2 watch areas are:
1. Loss of interest and an inability to move the club on in a reasonable timeframe (Villa) 2. Incompetence (Blackburn)
From a top level perspective, the fans/club and owners ambitions (particularly new owners who have invested) are generally aligned. Successful team = Financial Reward
That balanced equation is why we should be positive about this (Particulary in our case as - dare I say it - success for us is relative) - as long as we don't encounter either point 1 or 2 from above....
[Post edited 11 Apr 2016 10:19]
The problem is as you say yourself there are plenty of cases where that equation has been proven not to hold.
I'm generally cautiously optimistic. Just saying that at this time we don't have sufficient information to be anything other than cautious.
If the value of the club was £100M when the previous "investors" we're sniffing around , surely that value has increased with the certainty of another season of PL football and the increased TV deal?
I still think we need to wait for more concrete information before we descend on the Liberty with pitchforks. The most worrying aspect is undoubtedly the lack of transparency in terms of keeping some shareholders in the dark about the advanced negotiations. That, if true, beggars belief. I'm still struggling to believe that advanced negotiations have been taking place for the sale of a controlling interest in the club behind the backs of the owners of 65% of the shares. That sounds like me negotiating to sell Phil Sumbler's car without him knowing about it. At the very least he would have asked me to sound out prospective buyers which in itself indicates a willingness to sell under the right circumstances.
Planet Swans Prediction League Winner Season 2013-14. Runner up 2014_15.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:12 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
I don't think they'll blatantly asset strip the club as we don't have a hell of a lot of assets to strip. Especially given an outlay of £70m or whatever they'll end up paying.
I suppose in the long term, a bigger stadium, naming rights, increased fan base, growth of TV monies may give them decent profit for a few years and then they sell the club for a big profit (like the "flip" mentioned), 10 years down the line.
Without that 25% there is nothing the trust can do if they come in and dilute the shares but anyone could do that at any time. I wonder if there is any way the current deal will prevent that from happening?
The Trust does have some protections even at 21% at least in terms of its financial interests, however that 75% threshold is ultimately key in asserting control of all aspects of the club.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:38 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
The Trust does have some protections even at 21% at least in terms of its financial interests, however that 75% threshold is ultimately key in asserting control of all aspects of the club.
What protections does it have?
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 11:04 - Apr 11 with 1121 views
Undecided because I need more truth and honesty. How about starting with exactly who initiated the negotiations and has kept others out of the loop. How about dropping the charade of loving the club... STID, no debt through mortgage/ loans etc and all the shareholders involved giving the Trust or even selling and allowing the Trust to pay them for the shares from future divis as a loan, enough shares to ensure the Trust gets the 25% to make it very hard work for an asset stripper.
No. Not happening? Didn't think so.
If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:00 - Apr 11 with 1068 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 10:57 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
What protections does it have?
You can't just totally screw the 21% out of their stake. There are legal protections, at least in terms of the financial stake of the Trust. Nobody wants to go down that route of course.
Moot point in terms of control though. 75% is absolute.
It'd be interesting to know who the other 'investors' are - the money men.
From the small bits I've found on the net, I don't think Levein and Kaplan have the money, they're just the front men for the consortium. A fair guess might be Erick Thohir, who worked with Levein to buy a stake in DC United and to take over Inter Milan. He would have the money, by all accounts.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:00 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
You can't just totally screw the 21% out of their stake. There are legal protections, at least in terms of the financial stake of the Trust. Nobody wants to go down that route of course.
Moot point in terms of control though. 75% is absolute.
Actually the reality is that you can't just screw the Trust out of the financial value of their stake. But that doesn't amount to anything other than the Trust could make the new owners buy them out as well as other shareholders at the same proportional value.
I do think it's important that the Trust spell out exactly what can and can't be done. The reason I suggest this is that a lot of the screaming on here over the last 24 hours consists of people saying 'the Trust must do this' when there is absolutely no mechanism for them to do so. Unless it's made obvious what the Trust can actually do, when the inevitable happens (either in this deal or similar deal) there are going to be accusations of the Trust not doing what's 'right'.
Given that the proposal appears to be for the new owners to hold more than 75% of the club, unless specific extra protections are in place via a shareholders' agreement, the Trust will be powerless other than through (as I said previously) a PR campaign which may possibly have some effect - if only on the identity of who the current owners sell to. If every other shareholder wants to sell to this lot, the Trust will just be an irritant, nothing more.
Talk of whether the shares should be offered to the Trust (as legally I'm sure they will be when a firm offer is made) is irrelevant as the Trust can't afford to pay the going rate. Similarly, although it affords extra protection, even gaining the 25% will only enable the Trust to prevent an additional share issue without pre emption rights. Again, if the Trust can't afford to take up the pre emption rights, it is a moot point.
As I have said, the only question now is which 'investors' the club is sold to, not whether it is sold. Some thinking outside the box is required, as discussed on here just a few days ago when I mentioned what you called 'mythical investors'. Well, here they are. It was blindingly obvious that this was going to happen this summer.
[Post edited 11 Apr 2016 12:42]
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:41 - Apr 11 with 1009 views
And this, my friends is what we are dealing with here. Probably the view of a vast majority of the donuts that, unlike this bloke won't even bother asking the question, and will just assume the answer is yes.
First question from Ryan, from Swansea, who asks: “How does this affect transfers? Does it mean we can be going after £20 million+ signings?”
Looks like Levien and Kaplin have history together. From what I can gather, Levien brought Kaplin into the Memphis Grizzlies (Basketball team) but Levien got the boot. Since then it looks like Kaplin has desperately been trying to get out of the Grizzlies and buy a stake in the Minnesota Timberwolves. As of recently, this looked an ongoing issue.
Levien looks like a bit of a decisive character, from what I have found out. One article I read said that the club he was involved in went from being very secretive on trades, etc. to becoming an open book. Reading between the lines, he likes playing the media game... which if the story on Saturday was his doing, would make a lot of sense.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:48 - Apr 11 with 984 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:46 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
Looks like Levien and Kaplin have history together. From what I can gather, Levien brought Kaplin into the Memphis Grizzlies (Basketball team) but Levien got the boot. Since then it looks like Kaplin has desperately been trying to get out of the Grizzlies and buy a stake in the Minnesota Timberwolves. As of recently, this looked an ongoing issue.
Levien looks like a bit of a decisive character, from what I have found out. One article I read said that the club he was involved in went from being very secretive on trades, etc. to becoming an open book. Reading between the lines, he likes playing the media game... which if the story on Saturday was his doing, would make a lot of sense.
Different Kaplan I believe unless people are mixing up first names in articles.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:53 - Apr 11 with 969 views
The bloke who owns the Grizzlies at the moment is called Jed Kaplan according to info? The bloke with this deal is called Steve Kaplan who has previously been involved but not now.
No idea if they are related.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:56 - Apr 11 with 957 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:39 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
Actually the reality is that you can't just screw the Trust out of the financial value of their stake. But that doesn't amount to anything other than the Trust could make the new owners buy them out as well as other shareholders at the same proportional value.
I do think it's important that the Trust spell out exactly what can and can't be done. The reason I suggest this is that a lot of the screaming on here over the last 24 hours consists of people saying 'the Trust must do this' when there is absolutely no mechanism for them to do so. Unless it's made obvious what the Trust can actually do, when the inevitable happens (either in this deal or similar deal) there are going to be accusations of the Trust not doing what's 'right'.
Given that the proposal appears to be for the new owners to hold more than 75% of the club, unless specific extra protections are in place via a shareholders' agreement, the Trust will be powerless other than through (as I said previously) a PR campaign which may possibly have some effect - if only on the identity of who the current owners sell to. If every other shareholder wants to sell to this lot, the Trust will just be an irritant, nothing more.
Talk of whether the shares should be offered to the Trust (as legally I'm sure they will be when a firm offer is made) is irrelevant as the Trust can't afford to pay the going rate. Similarly, although it affords extra protection, even gaining the 25% will only enable the Trust to prevent an additional share issue without pre emption rights. Again, if the Trust can't afford to take up the pre emption rights, it is a moot point.
As I have said, the only question now is which 'investors' the club is sold to, not whether it is sold. Some thinking outside the box is required, as discussed on here just a few days ago when I mentioned what you called 'mythical investors'. Well, here they are. It was blindingly obvious that this was going to happen this summer.
[Post edited 11 Apr 2016 12:42]
Not sure if I'm on the wrong planet here, but, to my mind it's about legal protections to safeguard the future of the club (not necessarily safeguarding the trust - the trusts role might well be redundant if the future of the club was legally protected). What would that look like, haven't got a clue but to my mind it is the trusts role to push the existing shareholders ('fans' remember,'STID') for those protections using all the emotional blackmail and PR at their disposal. With a 75% ownership from a single consortium, I don't think the previous trust model is any longer sufficient to futureproof and protect the club, as it relied on the start-up cameraderie which has all but evaporated anyway.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:55 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
The bloke who owns the Grizzlies at the moment is called Jed Kaplan according to info? The bloke with this deal is called Steve Kaplan who has previously been involved but not now.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:56 - Apr 11 by monmouth
Not sure if I'm on the wrong planet here, but, to my mind it's about legal protections to safeguard the future of the club (not necessarily safeguarding the trust - the trusts role might well be redundant if the future of the club was legally protected). What would that look like, haven't got a clue but to my mind it is the trusts role to push the existing shareholders ('fans' remember,'STID') for those protections using all the emotional blackmail and PR at their disposal. With a 75% ownership from a single consortium, I don't think the previous trust model is any longer sufficient to futureproof and protect the club, as it relied on the start-up cameraderie which has all but evaporated anyway.
I completely agree with you.
So the issue is actually the new shareholders agreement and what protections it gives the club into perpetuity rather than percentages of trust shares etc.
That's the point I was trying to make (badly possibly). A lot of shouting is about things like 'must get to 25%', 'must stop it happening' etc etc etc. the shouting should be 'what are the investment plans', 'how will investment into the club be structured' etc etc etc. and the ONLY weapon is PR to pressurise for as tight an agreement as possible. Forget the STiD nonsense - but public perception is a powerful factor in getting the existing owners to craft an agreement with protections in place.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:04 - Apr 11 with 938 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:02 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
I completely agree with you.
So the issue is actually the new shareholders agreement and what protections it gives the club into perpetuity rather than percentages of trust shares etc.
That's the point I was trying to make (badly possibly). A lot of shouting is about things like 'must get to 25%', 'must stop it happening' etc etc etc. the shouting should be 'what are the investment plans', 'how will investment into the club be structured' etc etc etc. and the ONLY weapon is PR to pressurise for as tight an agreement as possible. Forget the STiD nonsense - but public perception is a powerful factor in getting the existing owners to craft an agreement with protections in place.
At the end of the day, it's the legacy of HJ, LD, MM, etc isn't it?
For all the good they've done, if this goes badly and they have not afforded us basic protection ("there should always be a professional football league club in Swansea" or similar) then they'd have thrown away all that they worked for.
2
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:09 - Apr 11 with 912 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:06 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
At the end of the day, it's the legacy of HJ, LD, MM, etc isn't it?
For all the good they've done, if this goes badly and they have not afforded us basic protection ("there should always be a professional football league club in Swansea" or similar) then they'd have thrown away all that they worked for.
They won't have thrown it away.
They'll have sold it for 30 pieces of silver.
Planet Swans Prediction League Winner Season 2013-14. Runner up 2014_15.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:06 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
At the end of the day, it's the legacy of HJ, LD, MM, etc isn't it?
For all the good they've done, if this goes badly and they have not afforded us basic protection ("there should always be a professional football league club in Swansea" or similar) then they'd have thrown away all that they worked for.
No - they'll have sold it to become multi millionaires.
They will of course care about the future of the club, but not more than their financial stake.
If someone said to you - you can choose, Swansea City Football Club in fans ownership or £12m in your pocket and Swansea City FC in the ownership of people that may or may not do what's best for the club over the years, you'd take your chances wouldn't you? It's not like the club will go away completely in however bad a scenario you can imagine. The ONLY people that will make an objective choice are the Trust as they are the only party who will not personally benefit.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:12 - Apr 11 with 897 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 12:39 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
Actually the reality is that you can't just screw the Trust out of the financial value of their stake. But that doesn't amount to anything other than the Trust could make the new owners buy them out as well as other shareholders at the same proportional value.
I do think it's important that the Trust spell out exactly what can and can't be done. The reason I suggest this is that a lot of the screaming on here over the last 24 hours consists of people saying 'the Trust must do this' when there is absolutely no mechanism for them to do so. Unless it's made obvious what the Trust can actually do, when the inevitable happens (either in this deal or similar deal) there are going to be accusations of the Trust not doing what's 'right'.
Given that the proposal appears to be for the new owners to hold more than 75% of the club, unless specific extra protections are in place via a shareholders' agreement, the Trust will be powerless other than through (as I said previously) a PR campaign which may possibly have some effect - if only on the identity of who the current owners sell to. If every other shareholder wants to sell to this lot, the Trust will just be an irritant, nothing more.
Talk of whether the shares should be offered to the Trust (as legally I'm sure they will be when a firm offer is made) is irrelevant as the Trust can't afford to pay the going rate. Similarly, although it affords extra protection, even gaining the 25% will only enable the Trust to prevent an additional share issue without pre emption rights. Again, if the Trust can't afford to take up the pre emption rights, it is a moot point.
As I have said, the only question now is which 'investors' the club is sold to, not whether it is sold. Some thinking outside the box is required, as discussed on here just a few days ago when I mentioned what you called 'mythical investors'. Well, here they are. It was blindingly obvious that this was going to happen this summer.
[Post edited 11 Apr 2016 12:42]
Wasn't that what I said?
There will be communications and forums planned to get a lot of the information out there regarding what the Trust can do, next steps etc.
Broadly agree with the rest of your post. And yes, given the previous interest it was always, to me at least, a matter of not If but When. The haste of this weekend's press releases has caught everyone by surprise though. You do have to wonder about the timing and rationale of all that.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
