| Jake Silverstein 19:10 - Aug 7 with 17702 views | Treforys_Jack |
So another shareholder, good news or not ? |  | | |  |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:06 - Aug 18 with 1674 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:51 - Aug 17 by Chief |
So why do you think they are skint?
And how a would you expect them to diversify? Open a campsite?
You say about keeping their shares was a risk but what do you expect them to do with them? Who's falling over themselves to buy 21% of a football club? The Americans have shown that total power is possible without the trusts shares. [Post edited 17 Aug 2020 22:03]
|
I have answered the first question. You clrearly know nothing about managing money and evidently neither do the Trust. Holding 94% of their assets in the football team at high risk of relegation each season in the PL was 'bonkers'. Without knowing the ins and outs of the constitution ideally they woud have sold the majority of the shares, and invested in a broad range of funds including bonds, equities and cash. Failing that if blocked by their constitution they would have sold and put money in cash funds as advised by a financial consultant to get the best returns. Funds have rocketted since Brexit in 2016 partly due to the devaluation of Sterling.
The Trust if well run would have stated after 2013 or so they wanted to diversify and sell shares and hold and maintain a 5% holding. Total common sense. They would then be in the same tent as the other owners. This would be efficient networking. They failed to do this even when notified other shareholders were selling up.
Holding 5% keeps a place on the board with no loss of influence. In fact they would have more influence as they would have an harmonius relationship with Uncle Sam. The Trust is a minority shareholder and always was. Even now US people want to buy into the club at albeit the lower price. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:15 - Aug 18 with 1662 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:06 - Aug 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have answered the first question. You clrearly know nothing about managing money and evidently neither do the Trust. Holding 94% of their assets in the football team at high risk of relegation each season in the PL was 'bonkers'. Without knowing the ins and outs of the constitution ideally they woud have sold the majority of the shares, and invested in a broad range of funds including bonds, equities and cash. Failing that if blocked by their constitution they would have sold and put money in cash funds as advised by a financial consultant to get the best returns. Funds have rocketted since Brexit in 2016 partly due to the devaluation of Sterling.
The Trust if well run would have stated after 2013 or so they wanted to diversify and sell shares and hold and maintain a 5% holding. Total common sense. They would then be in the same tent as the other owners. This would be efficient networking. They failed to do this even when notified other shareholders were selling up.
Holding 5% keeps a place on the board with no loss of influence. In fact they would have more influence as they would have an harmonius relationship with Uncle Sam. The Trust is a minority shareholder and always was. Even now US people want to buy into the club at albeit the lower price. |
No, you haven't answered why you think the trust are skint at all.
Again, why would anyone want to buy the trusts shares? The Americans have shown full control is achieved without needing to pay for their 21%.
How do you know where the trusts finances are being held and what interest etc it is amassing?
Lots of assumptions in that paragraph especially the bit about being in the same tent as the sell outs, we know they are fully capable of blatent betrayal. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:31 - Aug 18 with 1649 views | Chief |
And in addition wasn't the trust and some of its directors actually criticized previously for having too close and comfy relationship with the clubs other shareholders!? | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:36 - Aug 18 with 1645 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 18 by chad |
We have experienced legal Counsel, advising us we have a STRONG legal case
And you are suggesting 50:50 ;)
You seem to be getting increasingly desperate to make things up
You do understand Counsel are fully aware of the legal system, are experts in their fields, and won’t stick their neck out, or risk their massively valuable legal reputation by overestimating the strength of a case. In fact quite the reverse. You do understand strong means robust / powerful?
. |
The QC said legal action is a LAST RESORT. The situation clearly does not demand a last resort. This may have some credibility if Swansea were tumbling down the divisions as many people on here confidently predicted but this has not happened. Swansea was two games from the promised land. Sitting tight accepting minor dilution and working for a return the the Premier leagues is a far better resort. This should be followed by a sale allowing a 5% holding and cash in the bank.
Interestingly the new board might revisit the mission statement and in that case the legal case really will not stand up to scrutiny.
For example:
Does legal action bring the community any closer to the club? No
Does legal action allow for an elected member on the board? No.
Does legal action maintain a stake in the club. No. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:40 - Aug 18 with 1642 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:36 - Aug 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC said legal action is a LAST RESORT. The situation clearly does not demand a last resort. This may have some credibility if Swansea were tumbling down the divisions as many people on here confidently predicted but this has not happened. Swansea was two games from the promised land. Sitting tight accepting minor dilution and working for a return the the Premier leagues is a far better resort. This should be followed by a sale allowing a 5% holding and cash in the bank.
Interestingly the new board might revisit the mission statement and in that case the legal case really will not stand up to scrutiny.
For example:
Does legal action bring the community any closer to the club? No
Does legal action allow for an elected member on the board? No.
Does legal action maintain a stake in the club. No. |
Did the QC actually say 'last resort'?
Or was it more along the lines needing to exhaust alternative methods first? | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:41 - Aug 18 with 1640 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:28 - Aug 16 by Dr_Winston |
Lot of truth in that.
The Americans have been more guilty of stupidity than malice. Bradley. Leaving Jenkins in charge. Failing to engage properly with the Trust.
Unfortunately now the well is poisoned completely and it's very hard to see any kind of rapprochement, even despite the obviously decent work being done by Birch in getting the club close to sustainable.
Not helped by supporters crying like babies because we're not spending money we clearly don't have, or claiming that they're asset stripping when just a cursory glance over the figures fails to identify millions to pilfer. |
Rapprochement, oh la la monsieur, love it, not heard it before, similar base to rapport presumably.
I think the new majority owners are guilty of a little more than stupidity. I also think we are doing them a disservice in thinking they are in any ways stupid.
As my earlier post indicates, they seemed to be the ones creating the bullets, for the sellouts to fire, in their desperation to jump through any hoops to get their massive bung. Like dogs salivating to get at a food bowl.
It is obvious they would not go along with excluding their future main shareholding partners and fan reps, if they valued their ongoing relationships. Power talks and they (understandably) preferred to Remove that from the Trust so they could do as they wished with the club. Subsequently they have rode roughshod over the Trust, only to apologise and do the same again, and again...
I don’t know about asset stripping, but my opinion is they will be as ruthless to protect their own interests (including best return / least loss) when they leave, as they were when they arrived. Any businesspeople worth their salt would be remiss if they didn’t have in place an exit plan, when entering into such a venture as this. The money that lined the sellouts pockets, (that the club did not see a penny of), will, as I have always maintained, if necessary be taken from the club in any way possible if that becomes necessary..
My view has not changed from that stated at the Trust forum with the new majority owners 3 years ago
‘obviously your interests is doing the best with the club that you can and that is great for us, but you are going to have a get out, if things go wrong, and that’s when it comes down to us the Trust.’
They also made it absolutely clear they are not interested in owning a Championship Club as there was no money in it for them. How long they will attempt to get back to the PL, before they walk away, who knows. Who knows if they have already been trying for some time to walk away. |  | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:01 - Aug 18 with 1629 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:40 - Aug 18 by Chief |
Did the QC actually say 'last resort'?
Or was it more along the lines needing to exhaust alternative methods first? |
I recalled the quote from a couple of years back and found it on the Wales online website from 2017.
"Trust chairman, outlined that the organisation had received advice from a London QC that they had a strong case but that legal action - on which the Trust have already spent over £30,000 - should be a last resort." | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:04 - Aug 18 with 1628 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:01 - Aug 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I recalled the quote from a couple of years back and found it on the Wales online website from 2017.
"Trust chairman, outlined that the organisation had received advice from a London QC that they had a strong case but that legal action - on which the Trust have already spent over £30,000 - should be a last resort." |
Well it is what it is.
It was the Americans pulled the offer and the sell outs who wouldn't engage in mediation. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jake Silverstein on 14:34 - Aug 18 with 1605 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:27 - Aug 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust has assets in shares in the football club and had a few hundreds of thousands mostly from dividends before legal work and some membership money coming in from what I have read. I am not aware of any other significant income.
They had shares in a Premier league football team (2010-2017) that in each year has even randomly has a 15% chance of relegation and financial catastrophy. (3 from 20). On a non random basis their chance of releation was perhaps around 50% each season according to the betting firms at least. Only the biggest seven teams have avoided relegation from the PL since inception.
The Trust (notionally a committee of wise citizens) would normally be expected to play safe. Instead they started each season with 96% of their assets in the football club without making any effort to diversify their risk. Any football investment is "extremely high risk" as any financial consultant will tell you. Swansea city is 'off the scale' in risk terms.
Holding shares in football clubs, in anyones judgement, can be seen as a serious gamble in investment terms. They gambled for each of the seven seasons clearly stating that selling (diversifying) was not their prefered option. Selling would have cut their exposure. Taking legal action is also fraught with risk. Another huge gamble with money nobody owns. |
The trust is 100% about SCFC, that is all. It's not a hedge fund or a multinational corporation.
It exists to try and safeguard the club, it's their raison d'etre. They're not interested in having a diverse portfolio. You are thinking about them all wrong.
If SCFC ceased to exist, so would the trust. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:57 - Aug 18 with 1593 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:55 - Aug 18 by BillyChong |
How much weight do the legal guys think the shareholders agreement holds? |
Beyond being a standard Trust member, I am in no way privy to any inside information, nor (as far as I know) have any personal relationship with anyone from either side of this case.
I think (as the Trust point out in that communication I quoted - link below). It is quite clear that at the 11th hour, (when for some reason the sale was being delayed ;) Jinx was desperate to get the Trust to state the Shareholder Agreement was invalid. I think that tells its own story. I understand it was adhered to by the club in the past, which in itself legitimises it.
However I am not even clear if this is the main case, or even a significant part of that.
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2017/12/31/detailed-trust-response-to-huw-jenkins-i
The public conversation I had with Jason at the forum 3 years ago is interesting, re the Shareholder Agreement, and his conflicting answers. Especially the fact that the Trust subsequently said they provided the buyers with a copy of the Shareholder Agreement, v.interesting given Jason’s contradictory comments. I will bump up the old thread (I was Spratty then and had been for years - only had to change name as continually banned for trying to politely raise inconvenient truths)
This was also interesting from that Trust communication...
It is worth noting that recent publicly reported events have called into question whether some meetings of the football club’s board, that are claimed to have taken place, actually did so with the appropriate directors in attendance. We are clear that the Trust representatives were not invited, nor did they attend, the board meeting on 21 July 2016. This is despite the Trust understanding that our Supporter’s Director Huw Cooze was listed in attendance. The Trust understands the same applies to Steve Penny and Donald Keefe at the very least. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:45 - Aug 18 with 1566 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:36 - Aug 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC said legal action is a LAST RESORT. The situation clearly does not demand a last resort. This may have some credibility if Swansea were tumbling down the divisions as many people on here confidently predicted but this has not happened. Swansea was two games from the promised land. Sitting tight accepting minor dilution and working for a return the the Premier leagues is a far better resort. This should be followed by a sale allowing a 5% holding and cash in the bank.
Interestingly the new board might revisit the mission statement and in that case the legal case really will not stand up to scrutiny.
For example:
Does legal action bring the community any closer to the club? No
Does legal action allow for an elected member on the board? No.
Does legal action maintain a stake in the club. No. |
The sensible suggestion that Counsel gave, to try and agree a settlement in recompense for the Unfair Prejudice (on which he staked his considerable reputation, on adjudging we had a STRONG LEGAL CASE), was merely the standard recommendation any, responsible, competent and honest legal professional would make.
In that case Legal action is obviously the ‘LAST RESORT’ in seeking recompense, i.e. if an agreement for a fair / acceptable settlement for the loss inflicted, cannot be agreed, between the parties involved.
Of course none of that lessens the ROBUSTNESS or the POWER of our STRONG LEGAL CASE.
An accommodation was achieved and the Trust bent over backwards to make a deal, most beneficial to the new majority owners. The deal was recommended to the members by the Trust Board and agreed by the members.
After the new majority owners even being allowed to (to their benefit) change the details of the deal previously agreed, then unilaterally withdrawing from the deal. I think that was pretty much the end of the road in achieving recompense for the significant loss suffered, short of legal action; aside from having doormat tattooed on our heads, so the new owners understand that if they can the cheat us out of £21 million value, they can do whatever they want and never be held to account.
Another quote from a legal site that might help you further understand...
‘Courts actively encourage parties to resolve their disputes without court intervention and consider litigation to be a ‘last resort’. As Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals become increasingly overburdened with cases and whilst resources and funding continue to diminish, it is not hard to see why the courts take this ‘last resort’ approach.’
As far as your nonsense about investment I think, if you don’t already ;) then you need to understand this. The Trust would not of choice sold the shares. But they were put in a position where the influence the shares gave us in the club (which was the whole purpose) was negated by the despicable underhand and illegal actions of the sellouts, and with the collusion of the new majority owners.
It is indeed clear that they need to revisit the mission statement, as the subsidiary objectives no longer best support the primary objective of the long term protection of the future of professional football in Swansea, given the situation the sellouts have placed us in to fuel their greed.
I think the Trust Board May be very reticent to be seen to be personally responsible for withdrawing from the legal action (put to the members and voted for) as that may be seen to be throwing away the £21 million, likely to be awarded in compensation for our shares, as a result of successfully prosecuting our STRONG LEGAL CASE.
It is irrelevant how well the club does or does not do in the future, this is about the significant disadvantage that was visited on the Trust at the time of the sale, where our shares have effectively become trapped and worthless both in influence on the Club and in monetary value, regardless of what division we are in. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:56 - Aug 18 with 1558 views | chad |
Of course if the sellouts / new majority owners, prefer not to have their personal dirty deeds become a matter of legal record, then the ability to stop the legal action is in their own hands.
As all Trust has broken down, an equitable settlement for the value of our shares at the time of the offence, freeing us from the ongoing toxic and powerless relationship that their actions have caused. Allowing us to have the funds to best protect the club in future. And for us all to move forward. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 18:35 - Aug 18 with 1519 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:34 - Aug 18 by Catullus |
The trust is 100% about SCFC, that is all. It's not a hedge fund or a multinational corporation.
It exists to try and safeguard the club, it's their raison d'etre. They're not interested in having a diverse portfolio. You are thinking about them all wrong.
If SCFC ceased to exist, so would the trust. |
In the event of the Trust winning a prospective court case the Trust becomes a financial organisation with cash and no interest in Swansea City whatsoever. Therefore your comment actually makes no sense.
This could be terminal. Presumably they would see a role in the event of the club going into adminstration but that could take 30 years or more. With no attempt to invest wisely it will become a zombie fund with few interested in their future and members completely disillusioned. There are signs of this already. The members have not grasped llegal action is bad for the club and even worse for the Trust. Only the foreign legal interests from London gain anything. If the Trust was atually owned by fans personally it would have been run much better.
A more open minded organisation with vision would be making serious money for the benefit of the club and community. [Post edited 18 Aug 2020 19:16]
| |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:15 - Aug 18 with 1481 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 18:35 - Aug 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
In the event of the Trust winning a prospective court case the Trust becomes a financial organisation with cash and no interest in Swansea City whatsoever. Therefore your comment actually makes no sense.
This could be terminal. Presumably they would see a role in the event of the club going into adminstration but that could take 30 years or more. With no attempt to invest wisely it will become a zombie fund with few interested in their future and members completely disillusioned. There are signs of this already. The members have not grasped llegal action is bad for the club and even worse for the Trust. Only the foreign legal interests from London gain anything. If the Trust was atually owned by fans personally it would have been run much better.
A more open minded organisation with vision would be making serious money for the benefit of the club and community. [Post edited 18 Aug 2020 19:16]
|
If you think the trust could become some sort of money making entity to the point being able to become a donor to the club, and you know how to do that, why not stand for election to the board?
Sounds delusional to me, but I'm sure they'd hear you out.
I'm sure there are other clubs that have supporters trusts that aren't shareholders in the club, so don't know why you think the association would necessarily end. The yanks do what they want without usually consulting the trust as it stands anyway. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:12 - Aug 18 with 1430 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 18:35 - Aug 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
In the event of the Trust winning a prospective court case the Trust becomes a financial organisation with cash and no interest in Swansea City whatsoever. Therefore your comment actually makes no sense.
This could be terminal. Presumably they would see a role in the event of the club going into adminstration but that could take 30 years or more. With no attempt to invest wisely it will become a zombie fund with few interested in their future and members completely disillusioned. There are signs of this already. The members have not grasped llegal action is bad for the club and even worse for the Trust. Only the foreign legal interests from London gain anything. If the Trust was atually owned by fans personally it would have been run much better.
A more open minded organisation with vision would be making serious money for the benefit of the club and community. [Post edited 18 Aug 2020 19:16]
|
I could easily be wrong but I thought the trust had already said that in the event of having no shares all the money woukd remain in a bank account for use at some point in the future (that hopefully never comes) when/if the club needed rescuing.
The money couldn't be disbursed to members and I'm not sure it would/could be invested in anything other than an interest bearing bank account. Investing in the stock market is always a gamble anyway.
What you class a 'zombie fund' could be a lifeline if the club were run into the ground. That scenario could take 30 years or we could be like Wigan and be bought out in a few years by what looks like a complete chancer looking for a quick profit. It happens. Having a trust fund for the club, only to be used in the direst circumstances is much more than a zombie fund.
We'd need someone from the trust to clarify the facst though, at th moment we are guessing. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:13 - Aug 18 with 1426 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:01 - Aug 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I recalled the quote from a couple of years back and found it on the Wales online website from 2017.
"Trust chairman, outlined that the organisation had received advice from a London QC that they had a strong case but that legal action - on which the Trust have already spent over £30,000 - should be a last resort." |
You’ve picked a quote that was made prior to the change in circumstances that lead to the second vote. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:12 - Aug 19 with 1356 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:12 - Aug 18 by Catullus |
I could easily be wrong but I thought the trust had already said that in the event of having no shares all the money woukd remain in a bank account for use at some point in the future (that hopefully never comes) when/if the club needed rescuing.
The money couldn't be disbursed to members and I'm not sure it would/could be invested in anything other than an interest bearing bank account. Investing in the stock market is always a gamble anyway.
What you class a 'zombie fund' could be a lifeline if the club were run into the ground. That scenario could take 30 years or we could be like Wigan and be bought out in a few years by what looks like a complete chancer looking for a quick profit. It happens. Having a trust fund for the club, only to be used in the direst circumstances is much more than a zombie fund.
We'd need someone from the trust to clarify the facst though, at th moment we are guessing. |
The Trust you describe is one of 'old man' stagnation. Consider a win in court. This will see £12-13m in cash after the legal action with huge sums leaving the Swansea area into the pockets of London financial agencies possibly £6-8m and tax on top. (this realy sticks in my throat).
Judging by the current account they have roughly £880k gaining next to no interests. 0.15% or less. This may be because they are risk averse or they are forbidden to invest in shares bonds property etc by their rules. I havent seen that written explicitly. It may be 30 years before the club goes into administration (its been a few decades since the last event).
Assume £12m in cash. At the current rate of interest will raise £18,000 pa with £10,000 is subscriptions (optimistic) leaving £28,000 pa . Costs alone are £30,000 leaving a £2000 annual loss. However the real killer is inflation and devaluation. At a modest 2% this is a devaluation of £240,000 a year declining as the pot reduces. After 30 years this will half the pot. The £12m today will be worth about £6m or less at todays prices. Stagnation written all over it. £6m or less will be practically useless.
Members seem decent people but have not had the future explained to them. If inflation is 4% on average the Trusts holding will be irrelevant unless the pay off is invested properly.
Staying invested in the club even allowing for dillution is a better prospect than that. The risk associated with a championship club is much lower than a Premier league club. Relegation is a much lower possiblity and wages are much less reducing the risks associated with injuries etc. Swansea city will not benefit from legal action now nor in any significant way in the future based on current practices by legal action. The funders and London based agencies will be the big beneficiaries. South Wales seems to be adicted to this syndrome over the decades. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:36 - Aug 19 with 1343 views | swancity |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:12 - Aug 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust you describe is one of 'old man' stagnation. Consider a win in court. This will see £12-13m in cash after the legal action with huge sums leaving the Swansea area into the pockets of London financial agencies possibly £6-8m and tax on top. (this realy sticks in my throat).
Judging by the current account they have roughly £880k gaining next to no interests. 0.15% or less. This may be because they are risk averse or they are forbidden to invest in shares bonds property etc by their rules. I havent seen that written explicitly. It may be 30 years before the club goes into administration (its been a few decades since the last event).
Assume £12m in cash. At the current rate of interest will raise £18,000 pa with £10,000 is subscriptions (optimistic) leaving £28,000 pa . Costs alone are £30,000 leaving a £2000 annual loss. However the real killer is inflation and devaluation. At a modest 2% this is a devaluation of £240,000 a year declining as the pot reduces. After 30 years this will half the pot. The £12m today will be worth about £6m or less at todays prices. Stagnation written all over it. £6m or less will be practically useless.
Members seem decent people but have not had the future explained to them. If inflation is 4% on average the Trusts holding will be irrelevant unless the pay off is invested properly.
Staying invested in the club even allowing for dillution is a better prospect than that. The risk associated with a championship club is much lower than a Premier league club. Relegation is a much lower possiblity and wages are much less reducing the risks associated with injuries etc. Swansea city will not benefit from legal action now nor in any significant way in the future based on current practices by legal action. The funders and London based agencies will be the big beneficiaries. South Wales seems to be adicted to this syndrome over the decades. |
There’s far too much guesswork and too many assumptions there to make any of that valid or worthwhile
But you’ve over looked the single most important aspect to all of this. Justice. And the absolute truth. Then people like you will not need to make stuff up. 👠| |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:03 - Aug 19 with 1334 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:36 - Aug 19 by swancity |
There’s far too much guesswork and too many assumptions there to make any of that valid or worthwhile
But you’ve over looked the single most important aspect to all of this. Justice. And the absolute truth. Then people like you will not need to make stuff up. 👠|
Searching for 'Justice' is a real luxury for people with too much money or people using other people's money. I sense a dubious high moral ground being taken by poor people lashing out at rich people using assets vitually given to them and certainly developed by the same peole that made themselves rich by their own hard work. It really is desperately sad. The rich people to avoid are the Surrey set that are sniffing at a quick killing for something that took 18 years to build. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:23 - Aug 19 with 1326 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:15 - Aug 18 by Chief |
No, you haven't answered why you think the trust are skint at all.
Again, why would anyone want to buy the trusts shares? The Americans have shown full control is achieved without needing to pay for their 21%.
How do you know where the trusts finances are being held and what interest etc it is amassing?
Lots of assumptions in that paragraph especially the bit about being in the same tent as the sell outs, we know they are fully capable of blatent betrayal. |
The Trusts accounts are visible on line. They have £880k but are losing £75,000 a year over the last two years since the legal claim enquireis began. Their investments are desperately poor with £620,000 earning a paltry 0.15% interest. (about £900). This is likely to get even worse.
I assume they are not able to invest in funds according to Trust regulations. If they are they should hang their heads in shame.
Their assets are completely unbalanced and when the the majority owners asks for their share of the investment they cannot fullfill their ownership obligations. They are taking absolutely no risk with their cash and super high risk with their shares in a struggling Premier league footbll team 2010-2016 and now a super expensive and risky legal claim. If any organisation needed professional help this is it. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 17:10 - Aug 19 with 1303 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:12 - Aug 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust you describe is one of 'old man' stagnation. Consider a win in court. This will see £12-13m in cash after the legal action with huge sums leaving the Swansea area into the pockets of London financial agencies possibly £6-8m and tax on top. (this realy sticks in my throat).
Judging by the current account they have roughly £880k gaining next to no interests. 0.15% or less. This may be because they are risk averse or they are forbidden to invest in shares bonds property etc by their rules. I havent seen that written explicitly. It may be 30 years before the club goes into administration (its been a few decades since the last event).
Assume £12m in cash. At the current rate of interest will raise £18,000 pa with £10,000 is subscriptions (optimistic) leaving £28,000 pa . Costs alone are £30,000 leaving a £2000 annual loss. However the real killer is inflation and devaluation. At a modest 2% this is a devaluation of £240,000 a year declining as the pot reduces. After 30 years this will half the pot. The £12m today will be worth about £6m or less at todays prices. Stagnation written all over it. £6m or less will be practically useless.
Members seem decent people but have not had the future explained to them. If inflation is 4% on average the Trusts holding will be irrelevant unless the pay off is invested properly.
Staying invested in the club even allowing for dillution is a better prospect than that. The risk associated with a championship club is much lower than a Premier league club. Relegation is a much lower possiblity and wages are much less reducing the risks associated with injuries etc. Swansea city will not benefit from legal action now nor in any significant way in the future based on current practices by legal action. The funders and London based agencies will be the big beneficiaries. South Wales seems to be adicted to this syndrome over the decades. |
Some of that is complete nonsense, some of it made up to suit your argument. To start with if you put 12 million into a bank account it will draw far more than 0.15%. For example, a Skipton building society acount with a maximum starting balance of 1 million draws 0.85%. When the numbers are higher you get higher rates again and even higher if you lock money away for a fixed term.
0.85% after tax gives around 90,000 then minus your 30k running costs and there's 60k profit and that's without any subscriptions.
Inflation hasn't been 4% for ages.
Then lastly, you seem to have changed your tune over the risks a Championship club faces, why would that be?
At the end of all of it, what about honesty? The trust has been ripped off. The words 'last resort' were surely meant to imply that other avenues should be explored first and reasonable people (as in the Americans) would see they had a weak case and so settle out of court. It was never meant to imply the trust have a weak case. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:54 - Aug 19 with 1237 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:12 - Aug 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust you describe is one of 'old man' stagnation. Consider a win in court. This will see £12-13m in cash after the legal action with huge sums leaving the Swansea area into the pockets of London financial agencies possibly £6-8m and tax on top. (this realy sticks in my throat).
Judging by the current account they have roughly £880k gaining next to no interests. 0.15% or less. This may be because they are risk averse or they are forbidden to invest in shares bonds property etc by their rules. I havent seen that written explicitly. It may be 30 years before the club goes into administration (its been a few decades since the last event).
Assume £12m in cash. At the current rate of interest will raise £18,000 pa with £10,000 is subscriptions (optimistic) leaving £28,000 pa . Costs alone are £30,000 leaving a £2000 annual loss. However the real killer is inflation and devaluation. At a modest 2% this is a devaluation of £240,000 a year declining as the pot reduces. After 30 years this will half the pot. The £12m today will be worth about £6m or less at todays prices. Stagnation written all over it. £6m or less will be practically useless.
Members seem decent people but have not had the future explained to them. If inflation is 4% on average the Trusts holding will be irrelevant unless the pay off is invested properly.
Staying invested in the club even allowing for dillution is a better prospect than that. The risk associated with a championship club is much lower than a Premier league club. Relegation is a much lower possiblity and wages are much less reducing the risks associated with injuries etc. Swansea city will not benefit from legal action now nor in any significant way in the future based on current practices by legal action. The funders and London based agencies will be the big beneficiaries. South Wales seems to be adicted to this syndrome over the decades. |
£6-£8m in legal fees? What are you basing that on? | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:12 - Aug 20 with 1166 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 17:10 - Aug 19 by Catullus |
Some of that is complete nonsense, some of it made up to suit your argument. To start with if you put 12 million into a bank account it will draw far more than 0.15%. For example, a Skipton building society acount with a maximum starting balance of 1 million draws 0.85%. When the numbers are higher you get higher rates again and even higher if you lock money away for a fixed term.
0.85% after tax gives around 90,000 then minus your 30k running costs and there's 60k profit and that's without any subscriptions.
Inflation hasn't been 4% for ages.
Then lastly, you seem to have changed your tune over the risks a Championship club faces, why would that be?
At the end of all of it, what about honesty? The trust has been ripped off. The words 'last resort' were surely meant to imply that other avenues should be explored first and reasonable people (as in the Americans) would see they had a weak case and so settle out of court. It was never meant to imply the trust have a weak case. |
The rates given are in the annual company records. They are actually getting 0.15% for the last two years . Why are they not getting your 0.85% now.? This is not made up. Am the only person asking these obvious questions. ?
Rates are plummeting plus will not recover for some time. Inflation is going up and savers are in for very hard time. Locking up money in a bank means stagnation. Everyone knows this. What use is 0.85% when inflation is 3-4%. ? Stagnation.
Last resort means the case might be strong (50:50? ) and the fees exhorbitant. A massive gamble. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:58 - Aug 20 with 1157 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:12 - Aug 20 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The rates given are in the annual company records. They are actually getting 0.15% for the last two years . Why are they not getting your 0.85% now.? This is not made up. Am the only person asking these obvious questions. ?
Rates are plummeting plus will not recover for some time. Inflation is going up and savers are in for very hard time. Locking up money in a bank means stagnation. Everyone knows this. What use is 0.85% when inflation is 3-4%. ? Stagnation.
Last resort means the case might be strong (50:50? ) and the fees exhorbitant. A massive gamble. |
The U.K. inflation rate is currently 1%. Anything else you care to randomly guess, or provide stab in the dark figures around? I can’t see many falling for your bullshite propaganda, bar fellow sellout pal Badlands. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:27 - Aug 20 with 1129 views | Chief |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:58 - Aug 20 by BillyChong |
The U.K. inflation rate is currently 1%. Anything else you care to randomly guess, or provide stab in the dark figures around? I can’t see many falling for your bullshite propaganda, bar fellow sellout pal Badlands. |
Being balanced, I do fully understand some of the points made - the costs involved in legal action will b significant (and my guess the process will be strung out as much as possible by the accused). | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
