| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:06 - Feb 9 with 5773 views | Dr_Winston |
"Simply stated, our current contractual commitments are higher than our expected income.
Relegation has seen our annual income this season drop by approximately £60 million. That is inclusive of the parachute payments we received from the Premier League. Our transfer activity this past summer enabled us to address approximately half of this deficit.
On top of the decrease in income, the club still owes some transfer fee payment instalments on players we have bought over the past few years.
Furthermore, our financial position across all transfer windows in the past few years has shown a net loss."
Thanks Huw. |  |
| 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. |
|  |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:08 - Feb 9 with 5751 views | _ |
I'm sorry but that is a superb update and is basically everything I have been trying to explain to most on here.
Does this mean I wholeheartedly trust them, no, it doesn't
But does it mean I still think this way of working is our best hope? Without one doubt I do.
And this march today is sheer nonsense |  |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:10 - Feb 9 with 5744 views | Swansea93 |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:08 - Feb 9 by _ |
I'm sorry but that is a superb update and is basically everything I have been trying to explain to most on here.
Does this mean I wholeheartedly trust them, no, it doesn't
But does it mean I still think this way of working is our best hope? Without one doubt I do.
And this march today is sheer nonsense |
So you would've loaned Dan James to Leeds then for next to nothing? |  |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:11 - Feb 9 with 5728 views | _ |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:06 - Feb 9 by Dr_Winston |
"Simply stated, our current contractual commitments are higher than our expected income.
Relegation has seen our annual income this season drop by approximately £60 million. That is inclusive of the parachute payments we received from the Premier League. Our transfer activity this past summer enabled us to address approximately half of this deficit.
On top of the decrease in income, the club still owes some transfer fee payment instalments on players we have bought over the past few years.
Furthermore, our financial position across all transfer windows in the past few years has shown a net loss."
Thanks Huw. |
Hence the 70m
Yes, we can continue to bemoan the failures of the last two seasons (whilst conveniently forgetting the successes of the previous 15 seasons) or we can accept what we've got now and do something tangible to sort it out and make it better.
I know you know this Jamie. I'm not preaching at you here. You understand our situation better than most. | |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:11 - Feb 9 with 5730 views | jasper_T |
Contractual commitments being higher than income is, unfortunately, the norm for this division these days. Most clubs don't have the excuse of relegation, they're simply gambling with mounting debt and potential sanctions trying to get to the money league. | | | |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:12 - Feb 9 with 5722 views | _ |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:10 - Feb 9 by Swansea93 |
So you would've loaned Dan James to Leeds then for next to nothing? |
1.5m guaranteed for 4 months or 9.5m if they won promotion is simply not 'next to nothing' | |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:13 - Feb 9 with 5713 views | Uxbridge |
In fairness, that is the sort of statement and transparency that I've been saying for 2.5 years they should demonstrate.
Now to see words backed up with deeds. |  |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:15 - Feb 9 with 5698 views | Luther27 |
According to Sky we made a £60 million profit on transfers over a three year period to date I think. I suppose we will have to wait for the accounts to shed a bit more light on that. One thing that confuses me on this site is do we run the club prudently and be accused on a lack of ambition....the Woods transfer being an example....or do we gamble...like Stoke and kick the can down the road in the hope that a benefactor steps in to bail us out of the sh:t. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:17 - Feb 9 with 5679 views | Headmaster |
"While we think highly of Wilfried Bony, Tom Carroll and Jefferson Montero, it was our belief that these particular moves would have the least impact on our team for the second half of the season as we remain in the hunt for a potential play-off position, while allowing the club to recognise some financial relief."
How can he say they were working with the impact on the squad in mind when the club were willing to sell both Montero and James, two of our best wingers, as well as both Fer and Carroll on the same day? If it wasn't for the last minute u-turn with James and Fer we would have undoubtedly been much worse off. |  | | |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:21 - Feb 9 with 5637 views | BillyChong |
Have the yanks signed anyone using their own ‘investment’ yet? They seem to be getting everyone’s attention on the lack of income rather than investment. They must have taken a huge gamble on the club, surely they researched the risks. | | | |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:21 - Feb 9 with 5625 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:15 - Feb 9 by Luther27 |
According to Sky we made a £60 million profit on transfers over a three year period to date I think. I suppose we will have to wait for the accounts to shed a bit more light on that. One thing that confuses me on this site is do we run the club prudently and be accused on a lack of ambition....the Woods transfer being an example....or do we gamble...like Stoke and kick the can down the road in the hope that a benefactor steps in to bail us out of the sh:t. |
That Sky presentation will have been put together by a young man or woman likely on their work placement from university, literally searching for the fees on TransferMarket.co.uk or a similar website and sending it to his line manager. It doesn't take into account the likes of Gomis (£16m) and other purchases without an official transfer fee, such as the Sanches and Abraham loans.
Then we have cases like Andre Ayew where no doubt they marked him down as £20m or whatever it was as sold, but didn't take into consideration we wrote off much of that which was still outstanding when we brought him back (I think I remember reading that at the time).
To summarise those presentations are simply designed to get people to screen shot them, take a picture of them and share online, cause a lot of fuss without much accuracy at all. I'd almost call it fake news. |  |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:25 - Feb 9 with 5597 views | jasper_T |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:21 - Feb 9 by BillyChong |
Have the yanks signed anyone using their own ‘investment’ yet? They seem to be getting everyone’s attention on the lack of income rather than investment. They must have taken a huge gamble on the club, surely they researched the risks. |
Have the trust signed anyone with their investment yet? They own 21% of the club, after all.
Where's Huw stumping up 5% of the cash out of pocket whenever we want a player? | | | |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:26 - Feb 9 with 5587 views | Oldjack |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:17 - Feb 9 by Headmaster |
"While we think highly of Wilfried Bony, Tom Carroll and Jefferson Montero, it was our belief that these particular moves would have the least impact on our team for the second half of the season as we remain in the hunt for a potential play-off position, while allowing the club to recognise some financial relief."
How can he say they were working with the impact on the squad in mind when the club were willing to sell both Montero and James, two of our best wingers, as well as both Fer and Carroll on the same day? If it wasn't for the last minute u-turn with James and Fer we would have undoubtedly been much worse off. |
we had the makings of a very good team ,and a realistic chance of hitting the big time again ,all of that was going to be blown away in a day ,MONEY MONEY MONEY ffs god help us in August |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:28 - Feb 9 with 5560 views | _ |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:13 - Feb 9 by Uxbridge |
In fairness, that is the sort of statement and transparency that I've been saying for 2.5 years they should demonstrate.
Now to see words backed up with deeds. |
Thank you for this post. As a fan of this club I really, really appreciate a Trust Vice Chairman coming out with this. | |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:28 - Feb 9 with 5562 views | Luther27 |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:21 - Feb 9 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
That Sky presentation will have been put together by a young man or woman likely on their work placement from university, literally searching for the fees on TransferMarket.co.uk or a similar website and sending it to his line manager. It doesn't take into account the likes of Gomis (£16m) and other purchases without an official transfer fee, such as the Sanches and Abraham loans.
Then we have cases like Andre Ayew where no doubt they marked him down as £20m or whatever it was as sold, but didn't take into consideration we wrote off much of that which was still outstanding when we brought him back (I think I remember reading that at the time).
To summarise those presentations are simply designed to get people to screen shot them, take a picture of them and share online, cause a lot of fuss without much accuracy at all. I'd almost call it fake news. |
You have a point, which is why I said I think we'd have to wait for the company accounts to shed more light. | | | |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:32 - Feb 9 with 5540 views | Cooperman |
This all comes down to your level of trust.
Do you believe that the club owners were originally in this to take us to the next level and bump us on in several years time? And now that the early part of their plan has gone spectacularly wrong they are cutting cloth accordingly?
It’s a well written piece from the CEO and I can relate to his words. However like The Res, it doesn’t make me trust them wholeheartedly. What I personally need is some validation that the club is being run in a fully compliant way; whether this comes or not is somewhat unclear. Assuming it is though then we should brace ourselves for more austerity but not let that get in the way of supporting the team. |  |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:34 - Feb 9 with 5525 views | Smellyplumz |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:28 - Feb 9 by Luther27 |
You have a point, which is why I said I think we'd have to wait for the company accounts to shed more light. |
Dont hold your breath son. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:39 - Feb 9 with 5484 views | BillyChong |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:25 - Feb 9 by jasper_T |
Have the trust signed anyone with their investment yet? They own 21% of the club, after all.
Where's Huw stumping up 5% of the cash out of pocket whenever we want a player? |
The trust were never branded as investors, the Americans were. | | | |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:01 - Feb 9 with 5376 views | Darran |
So if it was their belief that those particular moves would have the least impact on our team for the second half of the season where does Fer and James fit into that then?
You’ve got to be fuçking deluded to trust a word this bloke says. |  |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:03 - Feb 9 with 5368 views | dobjack2 |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:12 - Feb 9 by _ |
1.5m guaranteed for 4 months or 9.5m if they won promotion is simply not 'next to nothing' |
The structure of the deal was not in our tinterests. | | | |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:09 - Feb 9 with 5334 views | thornabyswan |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:08 - Feb 9 by _ |
I'm sorry but that is a superb update and is basically everything I have been trying to explain to most on here.
Does this mean I wholeheartedly trust them, no, it doesn't
But does it mean I still think this way of working is our best hope? Without one doubt I do.
And this march today is sheer nonsense |
The march has focussed their minds.
Without the protest their would have been no statement. | |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:15 - Feb 9 with 5296 views | Cooperman |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:01 - Feb 9 by Darran |
So if it was their belief that those particular moves would have the least impact on our team for the second half of the season where does Fer and James fit into that then?
You’ve got to be fuçking deluded to trust a word this bloke says. |
I think it’s all come down to juggling numbers for the remaining forecasted spend this financial year.
Losing Fer would have generated ‘x’ impact and Carroll ‘y’ impact - all things considered at the time (including remaining fixtures, possibility of play off spot, potential for cup run, possibility of retaining Fer next year on lower wages, etc.) allowed arrival at the decision we now see. | |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:16 - Feb 9 with 5290 views | monmouth |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:08 - Feb 9 by _ |
I'm sorry but that is a superb update and is basically everything I have been trying to explain to most on here.
Does this mean I wholeheartedly trust them, no, it doesn't
But does it mean I still think this way of working is our best hope? Without one doubt I do.
And this march today is sheer nonsense |
This is where I am too. |  |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:25 - Feb 9 with 5244 views | STID2017 |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 11:12 - Feb 9 by _ |
1.5m guaranteed for 4 months or 9.5m if they won promotion is simply not 'next to nothing' |
Where do you get £1.5 million figure from ?
The last figure that was mooted for the loan and the reason your mate Huw supposedly told Leeds to get lost was £750k.
That is loose change compared to our black hole of debt.
Do you actually believe what you write yourself ? |  |
| |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:38 - Feb 9 with 5162 views | _ |
| From the boardroom b0ll0cks on 12:03 - Feb 9 by dobjack2 |
The structure of the deal was not in our tinterests. |
When they moved the goalposts | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
