| Trust Position Revisited 09:28 - Nov 7 with 13559 views | Shaky |
Now that some of the takeover hysteria has at least temporarily died down, I think it is time to go back and take another look at the Trust's statement last week issued when I was on holiday with my family over halfterm.
I have already mentioned how I think it generally makes the Trust's position look weak and marginalised; if you have to make your views known to fellow shareholders via what is in effect an open letter it just shows that ordinary channels of communication have completely broken down. This, for example, potentially offers an explanation why the Trust has been so unsuccessful in addressing some of the fans' widespread complaints over a whole range of ticketing issues with the club. To me it is a damning indictment of the whole focus and approach of a body that is within whisker of being the largest shareholder and represents substantially all of the club's customer base. Huge fail.
But going back to specifics of the statement I take particular exception to the following bit which in essence stakes out the Trust position: " . . .given the current strong position of the team and the club we do not believe that this is the correct time for the ownership or set up of the club to change."
The strong position of the club and the team could imply 2 things: the league position and/or the financial position.
If Phil meant the league position I think few outside the club would disagree this represents such an extreme short-sighted view that it must me satirical or some sort of wind-up. In other words if you think the club has now found its natural and permanent position in the prem within the top 6 you are delusional. Furthermore, if you glance at the bottom 6 in the championship you will see Wigan, Fulham, and Bolton, all clubs that have been considered well established in the prem within the last 4 or 5 years, illustrating how rapidly fortunes can reverse.
If he was referring to the financial position as strong, that is simply not true objectively. Certainly the club is currently self financing and the recent improvement in the TV money should help that, but at the same time investment in club infrastructure is required and operating costs are rising rapidly with the club's playing staff strategy - both in terms of wages and sign-on fees - already seemingly out of the window. Furthermore from what I can gather organisationally the club is understaffed and possibly underpaid, and that may be one of the reasons for subpar off-field performance in various areas.
Coping under the circumstances is not a "strong position". And as I have already argued in the past, the fact that none of the shareholders really have deep pockets and the ability to put new capital into the club in the event of a slide out of the prem is a serious potential weakness.
The time to raise capital is when you are strong and everybody is clamouring for a piece of you, not when you are seriously on the slide or the floor. Ask any capital raising expert and they will tell you this is likely to be the best time in the current market cycle to raise financing. ". . not. . .the correct time" as Phil claims is again objectively speaking nonsense. In terms of financial management the idea that now is the ideal time to strengthen the capital position represents sound, prudent management, whereas the opposing view that everything is fine does not.
That said do either of the proposals seemingly on the table from rival groups represent the right way forward? I am not an insider and have no clue whatsoever, but the alarming thing is that the Trust don't seem to have much in the way of hard facts either, and if they do now it seems to be knowledge that has only been acquired within the last week or so, reinforcing my criticism that the Trust is marginalised.
Even so the Trust and their representatives have been whipping up emotions, spouting slogans, etc. Now maybe there are leaks being orchestrated by potential selling shareholders but now is a time for cool heads to prevail, particularly when the real - voting - power of the Trust to affect the outcome of the current situation is so limited.
My advice is to calm down, boys, and maybe go and read a book or something. In the present circumstances I suggest this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Confusin-Confusiones/dp/ |  |
| |  |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:19 - Nov 7 with 1405 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 16:59 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
no I'm not missing that point at all.
I think we're saying the same thing. The point i was trying to make (and was making earlier to Shaky when i said he was starting from the wrong place) is that the mechanisms used to get the actual investment in to the club are a little incidental. It's the initial change of ownership (or subsequent change of ownership over time) which changes everything and of the current owners want to sell, a change in ownership is inevitable.
I agree re the stopping it at source therefore if at all possible.
To be honest, the place where I think I'm different to many on here (and I actually agree with Shaky I think) is that in a well run business, with the current ownership structure, I don't understand the complete aversion to debt. I would prefer, if we genuinely need substantial funds to continue to progress (and I'm not sure this has been proven to be honest) to see our current ownership maintained and for us to take out a reasonable amount of debt. As long as it can be serviced, and is not at a level where it threatens our existence (even if relegated), I can't see the problem as such. The issue though, is that is not really what is meant when they say 'we need investment'. What they actually mean is 'we want to sell our stake and cash in'. |
"no I'm not missing that point at all."
Well, what a surprise you coming back with that ;-)
And yes, Lis to your last sentence. I think the vast majority of us fans, at least on here, are working to this mandate as opposed to the vague load of bollox Jenkins is coming out with. |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:24 - Nov 7 with 1396 views | ScoobyWho |
| Trust Position Revisited on 16:33 - Nov 7 by _ |
Mate, you will see Darran's pathetic input into this thread...
One effing borefest and 2 great posts. I guess it was removed because he tried to derail good debate. |
You are probably right, but I want to hear the reason why from the moderator. |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:44 - Nov 7 with 1373 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:19 - Nov 7 by _ |
"no I'm not missing that point at all."
Well, what a surprise you coming back with that ;-)
And yes, Lis to your last sentence. I think the vast majority of us fans, at least on here, are working to this mandate as opposed to the vague load of bollox Jenkins is coming out with. |
I was explaining my thoughts rather than saying I was right if you read it ;-)
edited since it may not make sense otherwise to add:
I was saying originally that whatever way the actual money coming in to the club happens it ends up with a set of unwanted consequences for one party or another. You then said that I'd missed the point and that it was the bit before that which was important. I was trying to say that I hadn't missed that point - and that because unwanted consequences are unavoidable once the process starts, the only possible time to stop those unwanted consequences is before the initial change. In other words, we are saying the same thing.
[Post edited 7 Nov 2014 17:50]
|  | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:45 - Nov 7 with 1363 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:44 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
I was explaining my thoughts rather than saying I was right if you read it ;-)
edited since it may not make sense otherwise to add:
I was saying originally that whatever way the actual money coming in to the club happens it ends up with a set of unwanted consequences for one party or another. You then said that I'd missed the point and that it was the bit before that which was important. I was trying to say that I hadn't missed that point - and that because unwanted consequences are unavoidable once the process starts, the only possible time to stop those unwanted consequences is before the initial change. In other words, we are saying the same thing.
[Post edited 7 Nov 2014 17:50]
|
You saying you were right???
God, no... whatever made you think I was implying that? Preposterous ;-) | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:52 - Nov 7 with 1354 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:45 - Nov 7 by _ |
You saying you were right???
God, no... whatever made you think I was implying that? Preposterous ;-) |
I edited the reply to make more sense but you'd answered this beforehand.
I don't understand - you are saying exactly what I'm saying yet when I say it i'm trying to be clever?? | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:03 - Nov 7 with 1336 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 17:52 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
I edited the reply to make more sense but you'd answered this beforehand.
I don't understand - you are saying exactly what I'm saying yet when I say it i'm trying to be clever?? |
I agree!!
(I can't win this)
;-) | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:05 - Nov 7 with 1330 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:03 - Nov 7 by _ |
I agree!!
(I can't win this)
;-) |
obviously not - you're a man arguing with a woman - you must know by now what that means ... :-) | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:09 - Nov 7 with 1322 views | MoscowJack |
Interesting thread (again) although possibly going off thread a tad at times.
Also, I've learnt two things today.....that I am WestX and LondonLisa. If you consider that makes me a cross-dresser, that's three things. Most people know that I'm too much of a big-mouthed tw@t to hide behind a different name.
Let's stick to the real discussion here as some of it is excellent.
I think, if I'm not mistaken, we need to stop the rot before it sets in. We need the SCFC Board to understand that we believe the Club is OURS and the Trust is OURS. They are just in charge for now.
We need to show our strength before the club's sold down the river, not after. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:17 - Nov 7 with 1302 views | jackonicko |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:09 - Nov 7 by MoscowJack |
Interesting thread (again) although possibly going off thread a tad at times.
Also, I've learnt two things today.....that I am WestX and LondonLisa. If you consider that makes me a cross-dresser, that's three things. Most people know that I'm too much of a big-mouthed tw@t to hide behind a different name.
Let's stick to the real discussion here as some of it is excellent.
I think, if I'm not mistaken, we need to stop the rot before it sets in. We need the SCFC Board to understand that we believe the Club is OURS and the Trust is OURS. They are just in charge for now.
We need to show our strength before the club's sold down the river, not after. |
I've only learnt two things. That you are westx and Lisa. I thought the third thing was common knowledge?
But to the rest of your post, I agree completely. Nothing is certain - indeed in reality nothing is even known about the proposals the Americans might have for the club. In the meantime, all we can do is pose questions.
Even if the Americans 'bring a team', I would like to know how they think they can crack the commercial challenge of breaking the US market. Fresh blood in that respect would be welcome, but not any blood at any cost. |  | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:22 - Nov 7 with 1294 views | pierre91 |
....the position of our Club, either intentionally or otherwise , is, at the moment, of no great concern to 90% of our supporters who are happy to see us 6th in the EPL and regularly featured on MOTD. And then there's us.
The future of this same Club deserves to be more open to a lot more transparency -particularly if we are in the Market for an "investor" (as HJ has regularly said at Fans Forums) and we should at least be cognisant of what that "investment" entails.
Who gets what and how does it affect us? As has been regularly pointed out, who are these people who want to buy into us and why? What do they get, and what do we (as a Club) get?
Until all of this is made a lot more clear than we've (as supporters/Trust Members) etc been directed toward thus far and is both explained and made clearer still we should be a little bit wary at the very least.
As T2C and Lisa have argued amongst others, we need to be (as a collective and vociferous force) a presence that tells the current Board that NOTHING will pass without our agreement - and that includes the Trust Committee and our Supporter Director.
Bring on the Arse.
COYS |  | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:26 - Nov 7 with 1288 views | monmouth |
I'm on the debt bus as well. Gearing is not a bad thing if the source, conditions, security and coupon are right (in fact a lot of big companies still firmly believe in M&M63 because of the tax shield and getting as far up the debt curve as far as risk - and equity cost of capital - will allow). This doesn't mean giving the lender any control or power other than the right to an guaranteed interest payment, so in no way a Tan scenario.
What it does mean of course is no cash for current shareholders. |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:35 - Nov 7 with 1267 views | Davillin |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:30 - Nov 7 by dobjack2 |
Sorry but the welsh name bit has a ring of VT suggesting that Cardiff would make a killing in the Asian markets by wearing red shirts. |
The first knee-slapper post of this thread and others on the subject.
Well Done1 And thanks.
On the serious side, there are too many other considerations about making commercial inroads in the States than a Welsh-sounding surname. I won't even start, but that notion should be put to bed immediately, if not to the sword even sooner.
 |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:38 - Nov 7 with 1262 views | skippyjack |
The only way I'll support a takeover.. is if it's beneficial for the Swansea area.. Will this takeover mean Swansea will gain economic gains?.. plus it could suit the shareholders companies for capital to invest and expand their companies in the south west wales region.. we're the best run football club In the country.. I don't think Mr Moore's would change much.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:48 - Nov 7 with 1240 views | Watchman |
what the fugh has the Trust statement got to do with ol shaky wakey family holiday!
ego dyckhead get over yourself fella |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:59 - Nov 7 with 1222 views | Davillin |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:55 - Nov 7 by Clinton |
On the subject of chasing the US market: Footy really is taking off in the states. I visited a relative in Indianapolis in May and saw this match on the local telly.
http://www.indyeleven.com/matches/match_center/gsmid/1620556
The Indyeleven had only been in existance for months and were playing in the regional NASL. Whats more they were rubbish and lost most games. They still averaged about 10,000 per game, reaching capacity for the stadium, and their supporters were ridiculously enthusiastic.
HOWEVER. US sports supporters and their local media follow their local Gridiron, baseball, basketball, hockey, and college sports teams most of the time. Once they get a better quality of football over there and more teams in the medium sized cities and a proper league pyramid, any interest in the Premier league will be peripheral. In the long run, I really couldnt see those Hoosiers having much interest in Swansea City to be honest. The Americans are not exactly famed for watching non-US sports teams.
Maybe some of our US correspondents have a feel for this ?
(I do accept that there were those massive attendances for Madrid, Manure, Liverpool etc for that tournament over there. Cant understand it myself, who'd want to watch that lot?  ) |
There's much in your post that is fascinating, but I will forebear.
Except for this. If the Premier League is pulling in paying customers without Swansea having Americans in any form of ownership, how would that change if we did? And if the Premier League is not getting "much interest in Swansea City," how would that change if we did.
There was an academic joke around some years ago that a researcher found that students who smoked marijuana got better grades, and other, perhaps saner, heads asked whether it was the other way 'round -- that students who got better grades smoked more marijuana.
Cause and effect can often be confused and reversed. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 19:09 - Nov 7 with 1195 views | Davillin |
| Trust Position Revisited on 16:31 - Nov 7 by _ |
No but you're missing the point just slightly (I think)
What i'm trying to say is, that by then, that problem as you call it, wouldn't be our problem. The club wouldn't be "ours" anymore.
So the "what next" bit will have no real relevance to us and we'd simply become just supporters of a football club, or not, depends on how everyone felt, I guess, at being owned by venture capitalists from overseas. This could be as successful as Man City or Chelsea or has desperate as cardiff city or Porstsmouth.
Either way, unless we right now as a Supporters Trust have any means, legal or otherwise, to block the deal and make sure the other shareholders don't sell their stake in the club, we will be powerless and just have to face our fate head on and decide what best to do with the proceeds from the 21.1% share in the club.
As I'm guessing we could be faced with selling our share for the best price possible as our only feasible option? This would mean, of course that we were indeed powerless with just 21.1% ownership compared to the other stakeholders who want out.
As far as i'm concerned now and all these rumours are enough for this to be of major concern to the fanbase; I think it's time the Trust start revealing what they know and what it is exactly that is being negotiated.
There's info out there... let's have it. |
I agree to one degree or another with everything in the post above, except this: "I think it's time the Trust start revealing what they know and what it is exactly that is being negotiated."
I'd let the Trust Board decide when to reveal what they know, lest revelation make their job harder, perhaps fatally.
I say that from considerable experience serving on, or serving as solicitor or negotiator for, several boards.
It's kinda like asking a manager to reveal all of his game plans while the game is aplaying. Win first, posturing at press conference later. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 19:11 - Nov 7 with 1195 views | Davillin |
| Trust Position Revisited on 16:59 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
no I'm not missing that point at all.
I think we're saying the same thing. The point i was trying to make (and was making earlier to Shaky when i said he was starting from the wrong place) is that the mechanisms used to get the actual investment in to the club are a little incidental. It's the initial change of ownership (or subsequent change of ownership over time) which changes everything and of the current owners want to sell, a change in ownership is inevitable.
I agree re the stopping it at source therefore if at all possible.
To be honest, the place where I think I'm different to many on here (and I actually agree with Shaky I think) is that in a well run business, with the current ownership structure, I don't understand the complete aversion to debt. I would prefer, if we genuinely need substantial funds to continue to progress (and I'm not sure this has been proven to be honest) to see our current ownership maintained and for us to take out a reasonable amount of debt. As long as it can be serviced, and is not at a level where it threatens our existence (even if relegated), I can't see the problem as such. The issue though, is that is not really what is meant when they say 'we need investment'. What they actually mean is 'we want to sell our stake and cash in'. |
Welcome. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:02 - Nov 7 with 1113 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 18:26 - Nov 7 by monmouth |
I'm on the debt bus as well. Gearing is not a bad thing if the source, conditions, security and coupon are right (in fact a lot of big companies still firmly believe in M&M63 because of the tax shield and getting as far up the debt curve as far as risk - and equity cost of capital - will allow). This doesn't mean giving the lender any control or power other than the right to an guaranteed interest payment, so in no way a Tan scenario.
What it does mean of course is no cash for current shareholders. |
There is nothing wrong with debt per se, but in financial strategy you have to tailor your gearing to the underlying business risk you face.
For example if I make toothpaste I am in a very mature market with no real growth, but with a well-established competitive structure that never changes dramatically from year to year. As such my cash-flows are highly predictable and I can merrily borrow away.
On the other hand if I am say a video game software publisher, the end platform for my products is subject to rapid technical obsolescence, I face high investment and marketing costs, and there are significant risks of having my developer teams poached. Therefore my business risk is high and I should adopt a conservative capital structure with a high proportion of equity so I can ride out soft business patches.
Swansea FC falls at the extreme end of that spectrum. Unlike other businesses where black swan type business disasters may be one in a generation events, in football they are annual occurrences, where relegation not followed by quick promotion again can spell financial disaster that can easily spiral into insolvency or bankruptcy. if you have too much debt.
What is too much debt? Well project financing typically ring fences cash-flows, so you could with confidence commit the revenue from say the first 5,000 season ticket sales, without any real risk. Beyond that things start to get significantly more risky, and it goes without saying that any meaningful amounts would have to be senior debt. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:04 - Nov 7 with 1108 views | tomdickharry |
The old cannon of investment,buy at the bottom sell at the top,in my view shares in our club are just ripe for selling,good financial advice to the Trust board if an offer transpired to sell would be to part with 11% of their holding of 21% and then sit on the sale proceeds in readiness for any financial problems in our club in years to come (their legacy), retain all the shares and if the market interest drops a considerable amount of cash is gone. 25% is the magic share holding, that figure I doubt will ever be reached,therefore,sell when and if an offer transpires. | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:09 - Nov 7 with 1096 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:04 - Nov 7 by tomdickharry |
The old cannon of investment,buy at the bottom sell at the top,in my view shares in our club are just ripe for selling,good financial advice to the Trust board if an offer transpired to sell would be to part with 11% of their holding of 21% and then sit on the sale proceeds in readiness for any financial problems in our club in years to come (their legacy), retain all the shares and if the market interest drops a considerable amount of cash is gone. 25% is the magic share holding, that figure I doubt will ever be reached,therefore,sell when and if an offer transpires. |
A strategy rather counterintuitive to the very principles and reason d'etre of the Trust I would argue. The Trust is there to ensure our club is run in the best interests of the fans and the future, not make money. 25% is key I agree, and 21% is a damn sight closer than 10%. |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:55 - Nov 7 with 1060 views | tomdickharry |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:09 - Nov 7 by Uxbridge |
A strategy rather counterintuitive to the very principles and reason d'etre of the Trust I would argue. The Trust is there to ensure our club is run in the best interests of the fans and the future, not make money. 25% is key I agree, and 21% is a damn sight closer than 10%. |
Tell me why did the Trust accept the Dividends,the bowling nights et al. money. | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 22:04 - Nov 7 with 1045 views | whiterock |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:55 - Nov 7 by tomdickharry |
Tell me why did the Trust accept the Dividends,the bowling nights et al. money. |
The Trust were right to accept its share, it is in safe hands, the suggestion of not taking it is foolhardy when others would have taken it, whatever. | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 22:47 - Nov 7 with 995 views | westx |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:04 - Nov 7 by tomdickharry |
The old cannon of investment,buy at the bottom sell at the top,in my view shares in our club are just ripe for selling,good financial advice to the Trust board if an offer transpired to sell would be to part with 11% of their holding of 21% and then sit on the sale proceeds in readiness for any financial problems in our club in years to come (their legacy), retain all the shares and if the market interest drops a considerable amount of cash is gone. 25% is the magic share holding, that figure I doubt will ever be reached,therefore,sell when and if an offer transpires. |
and who does this good financial advice come from? you? what are your qualifications for giving it? | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 22:52 - Nov 7 with 986 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Position Revisited on 21:55 - Nov 7 by tomdickharry |
Tell me why did the Trust accept the Dividends,the bowling nights et al. money. |
You're not seriously comparing the two are you? | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 23:05 - Nov 7 with 975 views | tomdickharry |
| Trust Position Revisited on 22:47 - Nov 7 by westx |
and who does this good financial advice come from? you? what are your qualifications for giving it? |
Buy at the bottom sell at the top,the trick is waiting and judging the top,common sense really.It does work I promise you. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
