| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! 07:37 - Jan 29 with 14387 views | NOTRAC |
There is one fatal flaw in the Trust's approach to the proposed sale of shares to the American investors.
From the beginning they have indicated,without any open discussion with members,that they are not interested themselves in selling any of their shares.From the Trusts minutes it is recorded that from the beginning of negotiations the Trust informed the buyers that their shares were not for sale.
Why?
On a pro rata basis the percentage of shares sold would amount to no more than about 6%.
This would leave the Trust with a 16% share?This would be perfectly adequate to give the Trust the same input into it's Boardroom involvement as now.Same representation,same limits on what it can and can't do.
Whether the Trust has 21% or 16% of the Shares does not really alter the Trusts say in the Boardroom one iota.
If one looks at the Trusts list of Aims or ,in other words the reasons why the Trust was set up in the first place, you will not find any suggestion that the aim of the Trust is to own or run the club.
It's main aim is to ensure the preservation of League football at Swansea..
This aim was obviously a reaction to the dire days ,and aftermath of the Petty era.
In reality there is only one way that the Trust can achieve that aim.
By having sufficient funds to enable or help the Financial state of the club if a similar catastrophe occurs in the future.
From the clubs present position of Premiership and financial well being, it seems almost impossible to imagine a similar catastrophe occurring again.
But we all know that there are no certainties in football, and the lower leagues are littered with successful teams of the past where future certainties are as negative as their bank balances.
A fine example of this is Coventry.In Premiership and preceding First Division days an ever regular well run club.Now a club almost without a ground.
In order therefore for the Trust to follow its own objectives, money is king.
The last three years has seen the Trust receive dividends in accord with its shareholdings of Approximately £600,000.
A nice sum indeed to have in reserve if the calamity ever happens.
But not as nice as £6.6m which is apparently what the Trust would end up with if the they were part of a pro rata sale share.
The giving up of a £6m windfall does not really make any sense
The advantages of retaining the 21% share in the hope of increasing it to a more influential holding is virtually nil.
There would be a small loss in dividends in the future but with a new Board structure there is no guarantee that these would continue anyway.
As stated earlier the 16% holding would still afford the same board representation as previous.
The consequences of not taking the money now, is advantageous to the other shareholders.
And remember most of all that although the Trust talk about a new shareholders agreement to protect their status, this will be almost impossible to achieve if the remaining shareholders do not want it.
In accordance with the Trust's main aim therefore they should take this opportunity of increasing the funding .
In that way ,and that way only, the Trust will have a much better opportunity in the future of achieving its prime aim of maintaining league football in Swansea in the future if ever things once again go pear shape.
|  |
| |  |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:15 - Jan 29 with 8264 views | Uxbridge |
No Martin. Just. No.
Interesting timing to yesterday's article, don't you think? |  |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:33 - Jan 29 with 8206 views | NOTRAC |
In what way Uxbridge, is the above synopsis wrong.
In years to come the Trust are going to look back at this time as a wonderful opportunity wasted.
At the very worst the Trust should have discussed the issue in more depth with its members.
Note that at the current rate of dividends it would take 100 years for the Trust to make up its shortfall if it sold its 6% shares.
Sometimes what at first appears a wrong move ,is often the best move. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:38 - Jan 29 with 8196 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:33 - Jan 29 by NOTRAC |
In what way Uxbridge, is the above synopsis wrong.
In years to come the Trust are going to look back at this time as a wonderful opportunity wasted.
At the very worst the Trust should have discussed the issue in more depth with its members.
Note that at the current rate of dividends it would take 100 years for the Trust to make up its shortfall if it sold its 6% shares.
Sometimes what at first appears a wrong move ,is often the best move. |
Given the main aim of the Trust is to increase its shareholding, how on earth would it benefit the Trust to sell a proportion? What use would a bit more money be in that regard?
All selling a stake would do is weaken the Trust, which could only benefit shareholders, both current and future, in terms of making their stakes more valuable without a pesky organization that isn't looking simply to feather its own nest. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:40 - Jan 29 with 8190 views | builthjack |
Surely it would be better to have more shares long term. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:42 - Jan 29 with 8187 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:40 - Jan 29 by builthjack |
Surely it would be better to have more shares long term. |
You'd think. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:56 - Jan 29 with 8146 views | longlostjack |
It would be a great gesture if those shareholders who are intending to sell donated enough shares to the Trust to take the holding up to 25%. If that made a share sale to the US "investor" less likely then you would have to seriously ask WHY ? |  |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:57 - Jan 29 with 8141 views | builthjack |
6.6m now and bugger all in the future or 600k every year and still holding 21%. It's a no brainer. | |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:06 - Jan 29 with 8112 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:56 - Jan 29 by longlostjack |
It would be a great gesture if those shareholders who are intending to sell donated enough shares to the Trust to take the holding up to 25%. If that made a share sale to the US "investor" less likely then you would have to seriously ask WHY ? |
That would indeed be lovely. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:13 - Jan 29 with 8096 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 08:57 - Jan 29 by builthjack |
6.6m now and bugger all in the future or 600k every year and still holding 21%. It's a no brainer. |
That's not quite his suggestion bit not far off.
It's this whole "the Trust would benefit from a bigger pot so they could be in a better position if it all goes tits up" logic that I don't get. Yeah, let's just let someone come in, potentially ruin the club but it's all alright because there's a chance we could have a bigger stake in the future.
Taken from the rather excellent Q&A at http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2014/12/31/qa-on-potential-new-shareholders-in-swans the Trust aims are as follows:
- To maintain a professional football club in Swansea.
- To bring football closer to its community.
- To have an elected Supporter Representative on the Board of Swansea City Football Club.
- To raise sufficient funds to buy a stake in the football club in pursuance of the above.
Now remind me again how reducing the Trust influence will help with the first three? | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:21 - Jan 29 with 8071 views | sixpenses |
NOTRAC makes a frighteningly elegant and persuasive argument
it is however short sighted in so many ways and diametrically opposed to one of the Trusts primary aims.
The only thing that is wrong in my eyes is we should be publicly fighting this now to totally put the buyers off before they reach the potential point of no return of tabling a formal offer.
Once they get a significant foothold there can be no doubting where it will lead. If that leads to the Trust being forced out of the club (as it easily could). Then depending on the share price that move is made at, NOTREC could be saying I told you so. | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:26 - Jan 29 with 8058 views | NOTRAC |
nowhere in the Trusta aims does it suggest that it,s aim is to increase its shareholding.
Its main aim is to ensure that league football continues at Swansea.
If there was any practical way that the shareholding could be increased ,the only benefits would be
a) to stop special resolutions being passed that it disagreed with eg watering of shares being the prime example.This needs a 26 % holding
b) to acquire 50% plus to control and run the club..
I would suggest b) is a non starter, and even if this happened would cause more problems than the worth of it.
The Trust has lived with the hope of aquiring another 5% to achieve a) for many years. It failed to do so when that very 5% was available at the time Mel Nurse,s shares were relinquished.This happened because the other shareholders did not allow it.
With the value of the shareholdings now approximately one hundred times their original cost, the chances of the Trust acquiring another 5% are nil.
As I said previously , the reduction of the shares by 6% to 16% would have no detrimental effect upon the Trusts involvement with Board matters.It would remain exactly the same.The difference is the Trust would have an extra £6m.
This to me appears far mor valuable than holding an extra 6% of shares .
In addition if the opportunity is not taken now the likelihood is that all the shares will be watered down to a value of virtually nil if it is in the interests of the remaining shareholders in the future. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:52 - Jan 29 with 7993 views | sixpenses |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:26 - Jan 29 by NOTRAC |
nowhere in the Trusta aims does it suggest that it,s aim is to increase its shareholding.
Its main aim is to ensure that league football continues at Swansea.
If there was any practical way that the shareholding could be increased ,the only benefits would be
a) to stop special resolutions being passed that it disagreed with eg watering of shares being the prime example.This needs a 26 % holding
b) to acquire 50% plus to control and run the club..
I would suggest b) is a non starter, and even if this happened would cause more problems than the worth of it.
The Trust has lived with the hope of aquiring another 5% to achieve a) for many years. It failed to do so when that very 5% was available at the time Mel Nurse,s shares were relinquished.This happened because the other shareholders did not allow it.
With the value of the shareholdings now approximately one hundred times their original cost, the chances of the Trust acquiring another 5% are nil.
As I said previously , the reduction of the shares by 6% to 16% would have no detrimental effect upon the Trusts involvement with Board matters.It would remain exactly the same.The difference is the Trust would have an extra £6m.
This to me appears far mor valuable than holding an extra 6% of shares .
In addition if the opportunity is not taken now the likelihood is that all the shares will be watered down to a value of virtually nil if it is in the interests of the remaining shareholders in the future. |
You present a convincing argument for holding onto our shares as tight as we can and pushing with all our worth to make this such a massively hostile environment to those who would want to take a controlling interest (and gain the power to dilute the Trust our of existence) that they would not want to get involved at all.
Then when the other shareholders see what the real share value is with a strong and resolute Trust at the helm, they may be prepared to sell at a reasonable rate (as per Mel) to allow us to achieve the shareholding % which will at least protect us from being the victim of forcible share dilution and subsequent forcible buy out. | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:56 - Jan 29 with 7981 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:21 - Jan 29 by sixpenses |
NOTRAC makes a frighteningly elegant and persuasive argument
it is however short sighted in so many ways and diametrically opposed to one of the Trusts primary aims.
The only thing that is wrong in my eyes is we should be publicly fighting this now to totally put the buyers off before they reach the potential point of no return of tabling a formal offer.
Once they get a significant foothold there can be no doubting where it will lead. If that leads to the Trust being forced out of the club (as it easily could). Then depending on the share price that move is made at, NOTREC could be saying I told you so. |
No he couldn't. It's a strawman argument.
The Trust couldn't be easily forced out anyway. However it would undoubtedly be weaker if it voluntarily took a smaller stake now.
As the Q&A states, and people really should read it as it answers all the questions, the Trust are in discussions with the buyers, particularly to discuss such future protections. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:59 - Jan 29 with 7970 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:26 - Jan 29 by NOTRAC |
nowhere in the Trusta aims does it suggest that it,s aim is to increase its shareholding.
Its main aim is to ensure that league football continues at Swansea.
If there was any practical way that the shareholding could be increased ,the only benefits would be
a) to stop special resolutions being passed that it disagreed with eg watering of shares being the prime example.This needs a 26 % holding
b) to acquire 50% plus to control and run the club..
I would suggest b) is a non starter, and even if this happened would cause more problems than the worth of it.
The Trust has lived with the hope of aquiring another 5% to achieve a) for many years. It failed to do so when that very 5% was available at the time Mel Nurse,s shares were relinquished.This happened because the other shareholders did not allow it.
With the value of the shareholdings now approximately one hundred times their original cost, the chances of the Trust acquiring another 5% are nil.
As I said previously , the reduction of the shares by 6% to 16% would have no detrimental effect upon the Trusts involvement with Board matters.It would remain exactly the same.The difference is the Trust would have an extra £6m.
This to me appears far mor valuable than holding an extra 6% of shares .
In addition if the opportunity is not taken now the likelihood is that all the shares will be watered down to a value of virtually nil if it is in the interests of the remaining shareholders in the future. |
Nowhere does it state the Trust aim is to increase it's shareholding? It says it in the above I pasted. Iesu mawr.
You're just plain wrong in your assertion the Trust would be untouched by reducing its stake.
There are also legal protections regarding diluting shares to remove a shareholder.
But apart from that .... | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 10:12 - Jan 29 with 7939 views | longlostjack |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:26 - Jan 29 by NOTRAC |
nowhere in the Trusta aims does it suggest that it,s aim is to increase its shareholding.
Its main aim is to ensure that league football continues at Swansea.
If there was any practical way that the shareholding could be increased ,the only benefits would be
a) to stop special resolutions being passed that it disagreed with eg watering of shares being the prime example.This needs a 26 % holding
b) to acquire 50% plus to control and run the club..
I would suggest b) is a non starter, and even if this happened would cause more problems than the worth of it.
The Trust has lived with the hope of aquiring another 5% to achieve a) for many years. It failed to do so when that very 5% was available at the time Mel Nurse,s shares were relinquished.This happened because the other shareholders did not allow it.
With the value of the shareholdings now approximately one hundred times their original cost, the chances of the Trust acquiring another 5% are nil.
As I said previously , the reduction of the shares by 6% to 16% would have no detrimental effect upon the Trusts involvement with Board matters.It would remain exactly the same.The difference is the Trust would have an extra £6m.
This to me appears far mor valuable than holding an extra 6% of shares .
In addition if the opportunity is not taken now the likelihood is that all the shares will be watered down to a value of virtually nil if it is in the interests of the remaining shareholders in the future. |
In other words existing shareholders are seeking to maximise their financial gains and if that means that the Trust as fans representatives end up with nothing or the club goes bottoms up then tough - they were warned. Let's not let the future of the club get in the way of lining our pockets. The wheel turns full circle. Talk about Animal Farm. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 10:32 - Jan 29 with 7896 views | Millie |
Could it just be that MM has done his back of a fag packet maths and worked out that Yanks and Trust add up to 51%, he's not keen on that scenario? | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 10:34 - Jan 29 with 7894 views | sixpenses |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 09:56 - Jan 29 by Uxbridge |
No he couldn't. It's a strawman argument.
The Trust couldn't be easily forced out anyway. However it would undoubtedly be weaker if it voluntarily took a smaller stake now.
As the Q&A states, and people really should read it as it answers all the questions, the Trust are in discussions with the buyers, particularly to discuss such future protections. |
I think we agree
The only reason NOTREC may say I told you so is if we are forced out at a much lower share price than we could get at the moment.
However to use that to argue we should sell now, is most clearly throwing the baby out with the bathwater especially in light of the prescribed aims of the Trust.
I understand the balance between adversarial and co-operative approaches. However given their prime aim is almost without doubt to get a controlling interest in our club, (which will enable them to do more or less as they wish regardless of any protections they may agreee to); then for them to know we will fight them tooth and nail and fully press our home advantage of a media sympathetic to supporter ownership, might well be something they do not want to engage with on foreign soil. Then back to us buying the shares at a reasonable price as I believe our supporter loving shareholders have prevented us from doing in the past. Presumably knowing the more significant the supporter ownership, the less likely they were to make a killing on their shares (which eventually the club will have to indirectly fund). | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 10:47 - Jan 29 with 7860 views | NOTRAC |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 10:12 - Jan 29 by longlostjack |
In other words existing shareholders are seeking to maximise their financial gains and if that means that the Trust as fans representatives end up with nothing or the club goes bottoms up then tough - they were warned. Let's not let the future of the club get in the way of lining our pockets. The wheel turns full circle. Talk about Animal Farm. |
Look its not about lining our pocket.Its about being realistic.
The only advantage in retaining the 21% is that we only need another 5% rather than 11% to achieve a situation where we have control over special reso;utions.
This has always been a good and necessary objective,.
But we have failed to achieve it, and realistically if weonly needed another 1% at a £1m value we are not going to be given it and we are not going to be able to afford to buy it.
Once we accept that we cannot stop the investment happening and also that we cannot obtain the extra 5% shares, to my mind we do not stick our head in the sand for principles.
The Trusts fundamental aim is to ensure the continuance of league football in Swansea.
Are we more likely to be able to do that with £6m extra in the bank or not?
Because of the changes that are now going to occur in the Boardroom we need to build up that contingency fund .
And I repeat again it doesn,t make any difference to our overall position now or in the future whether we hold 21% or !5%.As we can already deduce, in the grand scheme of things both means nothing, as far as influencing situations when the other shareholders first and foremost want to make decisions which are contrary to what we want . | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 11:22 - Jan 29 with 7799 views | jackonicko |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 10:32 - Jan 29 by Millie |
Could it just be that MM has done his back of a fag packet maths and worked out that Yanks and Trust add up to 51%, he's not keen on that scenario? |
And the fact that he would drop from being the largest shareholder to third place if he sold on a pro-rated basis.
Nah, couldn't be that. |  | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 11:22 - Jan 29 with 7798 views | DafyddHuw |
The Trust needs to be building up its stock of shares, not getting rid. |  | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 11:28 - Jan 29 with 7794 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 11:22 - Jan 29 by jackonicko |
And the fact that he would drop from being the largest shareholder to third place if he sold on a pro-rated basis.
Nah, couldn't be that. |
It's all rather unedifying isn't it. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 11:30 - Jan 29 with 7787 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 10:47 - Jan 29 by NOTRAC |
Look its not about lining our pocket.Its about being realistic.
The only advantage in retaining the 21% is that we only need another 5% rather than 11% to achieve a situation where we have control over special reso;utions.
This has always been a good and necessary objective,.
But we have failed to achieve it, and realistically if weonly needed another 1% at a £1m value we are not going to be given it and we are not going to be able to afford to buy it.
Once we accept that we cannot stop the investment happening and also that we cannot obtain the extra 5% shares, to my mind we do not stick our head in the sand for principles.
The Trusts fundamental aim is to ensure the continuance of league football in Swansea.
Are we more likely to be able to do that with £6m extra in the bank or not?
Because of the changes that are now going to occur in the Boardroom we need to build up that contingency fund .
And I repeat again it doesn,t make any difference to our overall position now or in the future whether we hold 21% or !5%.As we can already deduce, in the grand scheme of things both means nothing, as far as influencing situations when the other shareholders first and foremost want to make decisions which are contrary to what we want . |
Repeating something doesn't make it so. It just make you repeatedly wrong.
And that's before I get into the things you say we all should accept, which I would suggest are anything but. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:01 - Jan 29 with 7744 views | jacksinceever |
My understanding of the Trust's expressed aims from the outset is that they want to increase the amount of shares they hold.
the only two things stopping them is 1) lack of available funds + 2) lack of shares for sale |  | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:04 - Jan 29 with 7733 views | jacksinceever |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:01 - Jan 29 by jacksinceever |
My understanding of the Trust's expressed aims from the outset is that they want to increase the amount of shares they hold.
the only two things stopping them is 1) lack of available funds + 2) lack of shares for sale |
Also, if they did sell all their shares, what would they use the money for ?
It would have to be spent or disposed of as they cannot hold onto it, as to do so would surely be against their constitution / | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:14 - Jan 29 with 7705 views | perchrockjack |
Simply a matter of trusting Phil Sumbler, Andy G and the rest plus the Board or not.
As far as Im concerned this conjecture nurtured by a poster/s on this site could well damage the club. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
