By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 19:55 - Apr 10 by Highjack
What?
The way I look at that it's even worse! It's nothing short of a new share issue in the long run, meaning the Trusts 21% holding has gone in the flick of a finger! Surely it can't be anything else?
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 20:00 - Apr 10 by morningstar
The way I look at that it's even worse! It's nothing short of a new share issue in the long run, meaning the Trusts 21% holding has gone in the flick of a finger! Surely it can't be anything else?
I'm giving up now ,what ever will be will be and there's fuk all you and i can do about just smile we're safe
Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 20:00 - Apr 10 by morningstar
The way I look at that it's even worse! It's nothing short of a new share issue in the long run, meaning the Trusts 21% holding has gone in the flick of a finger! Surely it can't be anything else?
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:51 - Apr 10 by Starsky
The crux of ECBs poll "based on what we know" Well we know that 3 shareholders were kept in the dark. We have seen the post from JoeSoccerFan who has seen first hand what has been done by these 'investors' in USA. How can you be undecided, based on what you know.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 20:37 - Apr 10 by Uxbridge
News to me if that's the case.
Surely it is Ux. But obviously then you can explain what "taking a 70% control of the club without any share purchase, as that will be sorted later" means? Because I can't think of anything other than what I've just stated?
Adding football to the Americans investment stable offers the chance to work with existing partners, such as advertisers and sponsors, in new markets.
No doubt they will bring strategic insight and international presence to SCFC
A new pattern of ownership has emerged, with private equity investors taking a renewed interest in Premiership clubs. We won't be the last!
A corner has been turned,” says Dan Jones, head of sport at Deloitte. “After two decades of being very successful at generating revenue, football clubs are now finally able to retain some of that revenue. It’s quite hard now not to make money in the Premier League.” Source: FT
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 22:31 - Apr 10 with 1337 views
The main thing I feel with this "deal" is disappointment.
Disappointed how this was seen as an opportunity by some to make an announcement which overshadowed one of our best results in the last 5 years. Well done to our football team on that front.
Disappointed with how this appears to have been handled with regards to the Trust.
Disappointed by the apparent motives of those we have possibly naively thought would act in the best interests of the football club.
Disappointed that "our" sic. national newspaper has apparently done less background research on these "investors" than your average school magazine would have done.
Disappointed that there seems to be no talk of investment in the club.
Disappointed that there has been no word that I have seen from the council, our landlords. Surely they must realise the impact at the ballot boxes if they are seen to allow the City's most effective marketing tool to be asset stripped. Being tenants rather than owners might still be one of our strongest safeguards.
In summary, a disappointing BAD from me.
Still, just smile.
Swansea City, THE Austerity Club.
7
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 22:34 - Apr 10 with 1320 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 21:55 - Apr 10 by morningstar
Surely it is Ux. But obviously then you can explain what "taking a 70% control of the club without any share purchase, as that will be sorted later" means? Because I can't think of anything other than what I've just stated?
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 18:07 - Apr 10 by BLAZE
'Based on what we know'.... i.e. questionably conducted negotiations with dubious motives, a suspiciously crafted publicity piece in a local rag filled with sweet talk but little in the way of any real detail, and the set precedent of ripping the heart from a football club as told from a fan with first hand experience.... Then it's a definite 'BAD' from me at the moment. In fact I'm struggling to understand the arguments to the contrary, personally. It seems to revolve around us 'needing investment to continue to compete, see' which I dont completely believe, but is, incidentally, a convenient claim for a person looking to justify their decision to sell
[Post edited 10 Apr 2016 18:11]
I think we have shown in the 5 years of being in the PL, that we can more than compete without the need for any additional investment. We’ve also paid for the training complex’s. Only the stadium expansion is left (no need to buy the stadium).
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 22:53 - Apr 10 by SwansNZ
I think we have shown in the 5 years of being in the PL, that we can more than compete without the need for any additional investment. We’ve also paid for the training complex’s. Only the stadium expansion is left (no need to buy the stadium).
As much as I agree with all you've written there. It doesn't unfortunately stop original shareholders selling their shares in SCFC..which is their choice.
One of those shareholders ( FAO Oldjack) never was a JB. He bought his shares as an investment. Shame there isn't a very large lottery winner who is also a JB waiting in the wings to buy those shares.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:14 - Apr 10 with 1237 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 22:53 - Apr 10 by SwansNZ
I think we have shown in the 5 years of being in the PL, that we can more than compete without the need for any additional investment. We’ve also paid for the training complex’s. Only the stadium expansion is left (no need to buy the stadium).
I guess they've stopped seeing the club as a club for Swansea and now see it as 'their' asset. therefore it makes no sense to expand without a consequent increase in the value of the asset (ie their future selling price) which only happens if they own the asset. So I think there's a wall to bash your head against on that one. Just think Gollum...it's mine, all mine...my precious...
Pessimistic view? I don't think so. Barry Island speaks elsewhere of disappointment with the current pantomime. To me, it all feels quite sad, like the whole thing has just been a lip service charade all along and now we see that all the fine words on the way up were just that. Words. And now with a tame journo roped in to spout those words like a demented half brained parrot. Disappointment hardly gets close. They, and their apologists seem to forget that it wasn't just their initial investment that helped build what we have now but a hell of a lot of goodwill and support from people that expected and will get no financial reward, plus of course those so conveniently airbrushed out of the vanity project.
I'd like all of them to act honourably now so that these words choke me. Not holding my breath.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:14 - Apr 10 by monmouth
I guess they've stopped seeing the club as a club for Swansea and now see it as 'their' asset. therefore it makes no sense to expand without a consequent increase in the value of the asset (ie their future selling price) which only happens if they own the asset. So I think there's a wall to bash your head against on that one. Just think Gollum...it's mine, all mine...my precious...
Pessimistic view? I don't think so. Barry Island speaks elsewhere of disappointment with the current pantomime. To me, it all feels quite sad, like the whole thing has just been a lip service charade all along and now we see that all the fine words on the way up were just that. Words. And now with a tame journo roped in to spout those words like a demented half brained parrot. Disappointment hardly gets close. They, and their apologists seem to forget that it wasn't just their initial investment that helped build what we have now but a hell of a lot of goodwill and support from people that expected and will get no financial reward, plus of course those so conveniently airbrushed out of the vanity project.
I'd like all of them to act honourably now so that these words choke me. Not holding my breath.
I’m assuming the new “investors” (or any/most potential ones), would only be interested a taking complete control? Else, why couldn’t the existing shareholders who wanted to sell, just sell half their shares for a few million. The current board could retain control, and also make a sh1tload of money.
Big swing for the no vote this evening. The sugar, spice and all things nice article from Wathan hasn't survived the wash it seems. We're a cynical bunch but I wouldn't want it any other way
2
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:35 - Apr 10 with 1194 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 23:23 - Apr 10 by SwansNZ
I’m assuming the new “investors” (or any/most potential ones), would only be interested a taking complete control? Else, why couldn’t the existing shareholders who wanted to sell, just sell half their shares for a few million. The current board could retain control, and also make a sh1tload of money.
Other clubs have had minority stakes I think..Crystal Palace comes to mind, but I'm not sure what they get in return. There has to be a reason to invest...expected future capital growth maybe, but that relies on the tv contract growing and I just can't see it. If anything it must implode as people surely won't keep upping their subscriptions to pay for it.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 21:55 - Apr 10 by morningstar
Surely it is Ux. But obviously then you can explain what "taking a 70% control of the club without any share purchase, as that will be sorted later" means? Because I can't think of anything other than what I've just stated?
Say the club has 100 shares at present for simplification. Trust would have 21, rest of shareholders 1 share for each percentage owned. I hate using complicated numbers for examples.
To get 70% of the shares without any share purchase, the only real option is that the board decide to issue new shares which would be purchased by the new investors. This then dilutes other peoples shareholdings. Trust would still have 21 shares but out of a total of say 350 rather than 100 total.
That then conflicts with the whole "Trust retain 21%" claim because without the Trust buying more shares in that scenario, their percentage would drop. In that scenario, the club would receive the money for the new shares purchased.
In reality, what seems to be happening is these "investors" want to buy existing shares from your shareholders. No new shares are being issued. That's why Trust retain 21% even if everyone else sells up.
So the question is that when Wathan speaks of 100m investment, is that really 100m going into the club from the investors or is that the amount of money the investors will spend on buying the shares AND putting money into infrastructure? Buying existing shares gives money to those shareholders not the club.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
