Forum | The 2007 share issue (part one) by NOTRAC

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

The 2007 share issue (part one) 06:15 - Jan 17 with 3908 views

There have been many attempts to justify the original shareholders decision to sell their shares,and to understand how and why the Trust was not part of this sale.What seems to have been missed is the importance of the increase in issued shares in 2007.
It was at this point that I believe the relationship between the Trust and their fellow shareholders changed forever.
One of the major excuses for the sale on behalf of the original shareholders is that they invested their money when times were bad and deserved their rewards.
However, with a few exceptions , most of the original investments represented only part of their individual shareholdings,as substantial additional shares were acquired in 2007 when the club's financial position had improved dramatically.
Also it should always be remembered that the greatest 'investors' in 2002 were the creditors who accepted a write off in their debt of £1.5m to allow the club to continue in business, and shared only £85,000 as a result.
The first recorded meeting of the Trust took place in November 2001 with Kevin Johns as chairman, Mel Nurse in attendance, Nigel Hamer in charge of fundraising and Mal Pope There to give a song at the end.The meeting was basically to promote the start of the Trust with the idea that it should become a shareholder in the new Swansea City..By the following November the Trust was accumulating money, and a very generous donation of £10,000 had been received from a Gareth Keen.
By this time Leigh Dineen had got involved to the extent that he was voted Chairman.
The initial share issue as recorded in the Company Return of the 12th April 2003 showed that the new Swansea City had received investment income of £418,500 in return for shares.The full list of subscribers was as follows.
Trust £80,000
Mel Nurse £50,000
Huw Jenkins £67,000
Morgans £50,000
Van Zweden £50,000
Dineen £10,000
Katzen (and Crevoiserat) £111,500
Robert Davies, who was connected with the Ospreys purchased £50,000 of shares shortly afterwards (reported November 2003)
Whilst it should be accepted that all the above were risking their money at a time when Swansea were in dire straits.Relegation from the football league remained a threat until the defeat of Hull on the 3rd May 2003.
Of the above names Katzen and partner admitted that they were speculators.The rest however genuinely invested to save the club.The amounts however were not huge, and compared to the creditors losses were small in comparison.Also most were to immediately benefit from their investments either by gaining position at the club or through profitable future business transactions.
Morgans investment in particular was careful.A very wealthy man, £50,000 was a speck in the ocean for him.
The Trust therefore had invested more than any other shareholder with the exception of Katzen and partner.It was agreed that they should appoint a Trust representative to the Club Board.Their first big mistake was appointing Dineen.He not only had shares himself , by he was also made Vice Chairman of the club alongside Huw Jenkins Chairmanship.
At one time therefore he was the Trust Chairman,the Board representative and Vice Chairman of the football club.In addition he probably had the contract for supplying goods from his own company Bulk Vending Limited. This was conflict of interests at its very worst! Under his influence the Trust developed as a supporters organisation and not as a shareholders one..Even though by August 2004 the Trust had invested a further £20,000 to raise their investment to £100,000 which was a percentage holding of 20.5% no more shares were bought until 2007. At a time when the Trusts influence should have been at it's greatest they allowed the opportunity to strengthen their shareholding past the magic 25 % to pass them by..No shareholders agreement was made.The Trust could probably have written their own at this time and it would have been accepted.The major players were all singing off the same key-- moving things forward for the good of the club.
Although Dineen resigned as Trust Chairman on the 20th November 2003 he remained as the Trusts Board representative until 2006.Incidentaly Phil Sumbler did not join the Trust committee until 2004 ,but he became the Trust Chairman the following year, a position he held until very recently.
We now come to the very important happenings which changed the Trusts position completely.The events leading up to the issuing of further shares on the 30th November 2007.
(Part two to follow)

Poll:

Has the Europa Cup been worth entering this year?

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 08:02 - Jan 17 with 3814 views

PawelAbbott

When the trust sell their shares they shoul give 1/8th back to Gareth Keen in lieu of his initial investment. He could have bought shares in the club but instead gave it to the trust.
I'm not him by the way ðŸ˜ƒ

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 08:33 - Jan 17 with 3772 views

QJumpingJack

Interesting post.
I thought there were Trust meetings in 2001 in Port Talbot and The Brangywn before The Patti?
Maybe wrong.

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 08:59 - Jan 17 with 3720 views

Shaky

Not sure where this is going, but if you are making the argument that the relationship between the Trust and the other shareholders broke down in 2007, you are in effect supplying ammunition against the Trust's unfair prejudice case.

Think carefully before you go ahead with this.

[Post edited 17 Jan 2018 9:01]

	Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll:	Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 09:12 - Jan 17 with 3691 views

TheResurrection

A couple of things there and people wonder why I have a go at the Trust...

1. They allowed Dineen to manipulate the very important position as Trust Chairman to manoeuvre and cement his way very much into the Club Boardroom. Compare him to Gareth Keen, well that says it all.

2. Then they pretty much did exactly the same with Huw Cooze, but to obviously a lesser extent, and this amidst cries and pleas begging them to sort it out.

And lastly, Phil Sumbler repeatedly lying to us when describing his 11 year service on the Trust, it was at least 13 years.

All not good enough. We had it all.

	* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldnâ€™t ever bring myself to hate you as iâ€™d like
Poll:	Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 09:29 - Jan 17 with 3643 views

TheResurrection

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 08:59 - Jan 17 by Shaky
Not sure where this is going, but if you are making the argument that the relationship between the Trust and the other shareholders broke down in 2007, you are in effect supplying ammunition against the Trust's unfair prejudice case. Think carefully before you go ahead with this. [Post edited 17 Jan 2018 9:01]

Course he's not. He's given factual information which is out there in the public domain. How can factual info prejudice anything.

	* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldnâ€™t ever bring myself to hate you as iâ€™d like
Poll:	Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 09:33 - Jan 17 with 3632 views

Shaky

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 09:29 - Jan 17 by TheResurrection
Course he's not. He's given factual information which is out there in the public domain. How can factual info prejudice anything.

You seem to have missed the last paragraph:

"We now come to the very important happenings which changed the Trusts position completely.The events leading up to the issuing of further shares on the 30th November 2007.
(Part two to follow) "

	Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll:	Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 09:42 - Jan 17 with 3613 views

MoscowJack

Well, Notrac needs to make sure that he gets his facts right as he's missing quite a few points.

Could he fill in the blanks between the original takeover and the further sums of money put into the club (by the Board) to keep it going, not just the initial £50,000s?

The odd "£150k here" and "£150k there" that meant the difference between us surviving in League 2 and League 1, or not. I believe the first hit (or one of the first hits) was when the Trust couldn't keep up with the "Battle of Britton" fund and the Board chipped in to cover it. It's not a huge sum, but it was significant enough at the time.

Also, if it's going to be factual and revealing, it would be good to know at exactly what what point Leigh Dineen actually put a penny into the club.

It might also be good to know who put their money in first and last....and why!

Poll:

Simple...would you want Leon in the squad right now, if he was available?

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 09:49 - Jan 17 with 3588 views

NOTRAC

The 2007 share issue (part one) on 09:42 - Jan 17 by MoscowJack

Everything that I have included is based on Company House Returns,Accounts and Trust minutes.I am fed up of hearing how the shareholders justify the huge profits from their shareholdings because they put money in to save the club.The 2007 share issue was a restricted issue at par and represented as good an investment at that time as anywhere you'll find in football.

Poll:

Has the Europa Cup been worth entering this year?