| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 141128 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:06 - Jul 1 with 1938 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:55 - Jul 1 by swancity |
Ok I'll ask you again. What can go wrong? Give me some actual examples? It's as clear cut as they come. Come on you know it, everyone can see it. With everything stacked in your favour the reluctance to attack the problem is a mystery. |
You want an actual example of a case somebody thought they would win but actually didn't? Pop down to court, it happens every day. There is a massive difference between strong and guaranteed.
It is a very real possibility the Trust could lose a case. We don't think it's the likely course of events, based on our legal advice, but it's not so unlikely that we can dismiss it as irrelevant. Why do you think our QC advocated that litigation was the last course of action? |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:07 - Jul 1 with 1931 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:03 - Jul 1 by Nookiejack |
Sellers have given the buyers a warranty though |
And we know the details of that, the wording of it, how likely it will stand up in court, and what would happen if it did? You're taking some major leaps there. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:09 - Jul 1 with 1923 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 16:09 - Jul 1 by harryhpalmer |
While there is obviously a risk in if we take the deal on offer as has been pointed out, and agree not to take legal action on last year's sale of shares; they then just ignore the Trust. But realistically, what is the point in them doing that?
It is pretty obvious that they did not like it when the atmosphere went toxic at the Liberty last season.
Do we really think that they'd fancy a return to that kind of situation, if they shafted the Trust again? They would have the media on their back; the fans on their back. And then the sponsors and commercial partners becoming unhappy, just when they are looking to build revenues.
They have big bucks in play here. They want, and need a harmonious club in order to be successful and a return on their investment.
They were really spooked by last season's debacle. I'm not sure they want a return to that.
That's not to say everything they do will be in our interests moving forward. But without some presence to see what it is they are doing, how are we going to know?
That's why I think it is important that we remain a significant shareholder; a gatekeeping role to watch over them and big nose, rather than get surprised when it is too late to do anything.
It's not an ideal situation. Having a 25% or more shareholding would be my preference. But that's a wish that is long gone now.
And £5m is a drop in the ocean when you see the debts clubs like Leeds, Bolton, QPR have got themselves into. £15-20m isn't going to do much either based on those scenarios. Being able to influence the club not to do stupid things is more valuable IMO. |
£15m to £21m would be plenty in League 1 or 2.
Any debt at that time could be bought back at 5p or 10p in the £.
Obviously it isn't enough for the PL.
But why is the whole focus on maintaining PL status all the time?
One day we will be relegated it is inevitable for a club of our size.
Bookies are quoting odds of 2/1 for upcoming season. That means with regards to our current status/squad they expect us to be relegated 1 in every 3 seasons. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:11 - Jul 1 with 1910 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:31 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Largely agree. Particularly the last sentence and I'm surprised how many seem happy just to give up any involvement.
However there is another scenario nobody has even mentioned. What happens if the Trust lost a legal case. Because that's entirely plausible. A strong case is not a guaranteed win. What happens if it goes wrong? |
Ux - the bit that is just not being mentioned on here, although I've made a couple of attempts at raising it, and I think Shaky did as well, is that if you accept this offer you are giving up any right to involvement in the long term. You're also giving up control of when that involvement ends and at what price.
So the Trust are probably only going to be involved for another 4 years or so anyway. Maybe 5 or 6 if you're lucky. Then it's gone, and you may get a much smaller amount for giving it up at that point - who knows. I'm surprised at how why anyone can be happy to lose that control. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:12 - Jul 1 with 1907 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:50 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
It'll mean the Trust has 21%, little to no relationship with the running of the club, and a stake of questionable worth given the position of the majority shareholding.
As for the last bit, that's just insulting. If you think the Trust board need to act differently then I really do urge you to get your application in before next week's deadline. If this goes down the legal route, we could do with some people on board who think it's a good idea. |
Ok, the last bit was a bit OTT, but the rest of your post here demonstrates that the trust board is totally detracted from the feelings of many fans, in the fact that we've been fvcked over yet the board want to hang on to any scraps that are thrown by the new owners and the sell outs. 21% mind! The biggest single shareholder we were (seeing as MM's share is split in two), yet you all seem quite happy to advise us fans, after everything we've been through in the past, and the consequences of it that led to the formation of the trust, to now meekly surrender all of that for worthless cash in the bank, and a squeek of a voice in the boardroom. And you think i'm being insulting! HA!  |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:13 - Jul 1 with 1905 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:09 - Jul 1 by Nookiejack |
£15m to £21m would be plenty in League 1 or 2.
Any debt at that time could be bought back at 5p or 10p in the £.
Obviously it isn't enough for the PL.
But why is the whole focus on maintaining PL status all the time?
One day we will be relegated it is inevitable for a club of our size.
Bookies are quoting odds of 2/1 for upcoming season. That means with regards to our current status/squad they expect us to be relegated 1 in every 3 seasons. |
I hope this question comes out the right way, as I'm genuinely interested.
Do you want us to get relegated to League 1? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:13 - Jul 1 with 1900 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 15:17 - Jul 1 by NOTRAC |
Leyton Orient is not a good example.The £4m was paid to purchase the club from former owner Barry Hearn when the club was quite successful by Italian Francesco Bacchetti.In fact the Italian invested another £6m but because of his disastrous management the club slipped down the leagues regardless.
What is interesting is that Barry Hearn retained the lease on Brisbane Road which he had purchased some years previously.He charged Bacchetti £1m per year for rent which is a hell of a lot of money to find for a bottom division club.
As the Americans will shortly be acquiring the Liberty lease, I am amazed that no one seems to worry about this, as this could cause similar problems in the future if Swansea got into similar trouble. |
£4m was the price when Bachetti bought it and also when he sold it a month or so ago, so the example is very relevant. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:21 - Jul 1 with 1874 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:11 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
Ux - the bit that is just not being mentioned on here, although I've made a couple of attempts at raising it, and I think Shaky did as well, is that if you accept this offer you are giving up any right to involvement in the long term. You're also giving up control of when that involvement ends and at what price.
So the Trust are probably only going to be involved for another 4 years or so anyway. Maybe 5 or 6 if you're lucky. Then it's gone, and you may get a much smaller amount for giving it up at that point - who knows. I'm surprised at how why anyone can be happy to lose that control. |
I'm confused then. I've got people telling me we've got no right to involvement now. How is this agreement taking that away?
With regards to the drag and tag, that's a debate I'm surprised hasn't been a bigger one. You're absolutely right, agreeing to this could compel the Trust to sell its stake in the event of a future sale. Assuming the new buyers wanted that of course.. There's a PR hit they may not want to take. On the flip side, not getting the tag along clause means that the Trust may not be able to be involved in any future sale, and probably means there's a detrimental financial impact on the shareholding value. For me, the risk of being left with a stake that nobody else really needs to buy so in reality isn't worth as much as we'd like it to be, and we could truly be ignored by any future buyer, is bigger than the risk of being included in a future sale. At least with this Deal we can build certain agreements regarding the relationship into the documentation. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:23 - Jul 1 with 1863 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:06 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
You want an actual example of a case somebody thought they would win but actually didn't? Pop down to court, it happens every day. There is a massive difference between strong and guaranteed.
It is a very real possibility the Trust could lose a case. We don't think it's the likely course of events, based on our legal advice, but it's not so unlikely that we can dismiss it as irrelevant. Why do you think our QC advocated that litigation was the last course of action? |
I'm asking specifically about this case. What can go wrong? What could adversely affect it? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:24 - Jul 1 with 1856 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 21:57 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
That first paragraph is nonsense. If you think that protecting the financial value of the remaining value of the stake isn't thinking long term I don't know what is. You're obsessed with this figure of 21m and this potential scenario that it'll all go wrong with the Americans in charge. Well what if it doesn't? What if it goes well. What if they sell for double their money in a few years. I suspect that's the plan. The Trust will have just missed out on a rather healthy payday, either by forcing a sale earlier or not being able to tag along.
This whole idea of a rainy day fund is an excellent idea. 21m is better than 6m. Or 11m. It's not as good as 30-40m though. And in that interim there would have been representation in the running of the club.
As for the last sentence, it's just bollox. If there wasn't an acceptable offer, the Trust board would in every likelihood be recommending the legal option. You make it seem as if the Trust board have just taken the first offer on the table. That's just nonsense.. |
Your strategy is not to make £30m to £40m - it is to have short term influence 'a say'.
If the legal case is won £21m is guaranteed and that would guarantee professional football in Swansea with a high probability of total fan ownership of the club in the future.
£6m will not do it and you are therefore gambling the guarantee for £30m to £40m.
The thing is when the Yanks come to sell - my view is you would still make representations to the new owners at that time - to stay in - even if drag Rights were called. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:26 - Jul 1 with 1851 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:13 - Jul 1 by londonlisa2001 |
£4m was the price when Bachetti bought it and also when he sold it a month or so ago, so the example is very relevant. |
1.5m would have served us very well in 2001. As I recall it was around 3-4m that Portsmouth needed in 2013 to exit administration. 6m in the Trust coffers, at an absolute minimum, could be very helpful. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:27 - Jul 1 with 1835 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:23 - Jul 1 by swancity |
I'm asking specifically about this case. What can go wrong? What could adversely affect it? |
We could lose. Their QC could present a better case. How is that not something that can be comprehended? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:30 - Jul 1 with 1805 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:00 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
I'm a fan of the German model.
Is your aversion to accepting any sort of deal because you are looking for the scenario that maximises the Trusts bank account, above all else? |
£21m will allow the Trust to take control of the club - when inevitable downward spiral occurs.
Last season It only needed Siggy and Llorente to pick up long term injuries at the wrong - regardless of how well Paul Clement performed.
If you are fan of the German fan ownership model - then £6m isn't going to achieve your aim. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:31 - Jul 1 with 1801 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:24 - Jul 1 by Nookiejack |
Your strategy is not to make £30m to £40m - it is to have short term influence 'a say'.
If the legal case is won £21m is guaranteed and that would guarantee professional football in Swansea with a high probability of total fan ownership of the club in the future.
£6m will not do it and you are therefore gambling the guarantee for £30m to £40m.
The thing is when the Yanks come to sell - my view is you would still make representations to the new owners at that time - to stay in - even if drag Rights were called. |
Why does 21m guarantee something that 6m does not?
You're right that I see merit and value in the Trust staying involved in the running of the football club. Not for directors box privileges as you've a tad insultingly said before, but because I believe it's in the fans interests. And the club's interests too. I couldn't guess what would happen in a future sale, but wouldn't it be good to be able to be involved in the Process, see if they're someone that could be worked with and, if not, then exit? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:36 - Jul 1 with 1773 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:12 - Jul 1 by morningstar |
Ok, the last bit was a bit OTT, but the rest of your post here demonstrates that the trust board is totally detracted from the feelings of many fans, in the fact that we've been fvcked over yet the board want to hang on to any scraps that are thrown by the new owners and the sell outs. 21% mind! The biggest single shareholder we were (seeing as MM's share is split in two), yet you all seem quite happy to advise us fans, after everything we've been through in the past, and the consequences of it that led to the formation of the trust, to now meekly surrender all of that for worthless cash in the bank, and a squeek of a voice in the boardroom. And you think i'm being insulting! HA! |
Well you say that, but I was in a room with 100 fans on Thursday and nobody there was advocating legal action. Many were absolutely terrified that the vote could go that way. Be careful when you say someone is out of touch.. There are fans who agree with you. A fair amount I wager.
I understand the anger. Phils a better man than I for being able to get in a room with them as often as he has. I couldn't have stomached it. However, I've asked myself two questions. What's best for the Trust, and what's best for the club. In this case, I think the offer is the best course. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:37 - Jul 1 with 1765 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:27 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
We could lose. Their QC could present a better case. How is that not something that can be comprehended? |
You have the habit of providing a politicians reply. One that doesn't actually answer a question.
How can they present a 'better' case? Are there things that are being hidden? As all the evidence is completely clear cut. The next move has to be legal action. If you stop putting forward negatives and concentrate on the positives it will help. You're trying to convince everyone that legal isn't the best route when it's obvious that it is.
So what could go wrong? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:40 - Jul 1 with 1754 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:30 - Jul 1 by Nookiejack |
£21m will allow the Trust to take control of the club - when inevitable downward spiral occurs.
Last season It only needed Siggy and Llorente to pick up long term injuries at the wrong - regardless of how well Paul Clement performed.
If you are fan of the German fan ownership model - then £6m isn't going to achieve your aim. |
Why is 21m enough?
For your scenario to play out, the club would have to have a serious meltdown. Who wants that to happen? It'd be a nightmare. And also, do you honestly think it'd be as clean as presenting a cheque of 21m to the Americans in 2years time if we suffered two consecutive relegation, and they'd just agree and toddle off? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:40 - Jul 1 with 1745 views | NeathJack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:36 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Well you say that, but I was in a room with 100 fans on Thursday and nobody there was advocating legal action. Many were absolutely terrified that the vote could go that way. Be careful when you say someone is out of touch.. There are fans who agree with you. A fair amount I wager.
I understand the anger. Phils a better man than I for being able to get in a room with them as often as he has. I couldn't have stomached it. However, I've asked myself two questions. What's best for the Trust, and what's best for the club. In this case, I think the offer is the best course. |
To be fair from what I saw regarding the show of hands, about 3 voted for nothing to be done at all, no one put their hand up for legal action and about 40-50 put their hand up for the offer.
I was one of quite a few who did not raise my hand at all. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:42 - Jul 1 with 1741 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:07 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
And we know the details of that, the wording of it, how likely it will stand up in court, and what would happen if it did? You're taking some major leaps there. |
Huw Jenkins seemed to be very concerned about it though - getting his solicitor to write to the Trust asking them to confirm the Original Shareholders Agreement was not in place - was it for 2 Directors on the Board.
That indicates he is concerned about the warranty that the selling shareholders have given to the buyers.
The selling shareholders could be left holding £21m if the Trust's shares and totally locked in under the new articles - where the majority shareholder has all the power.
As I said earlier that would be quite ironic - that the selling shareholders stitched up the Trust under the new articles (not asking the Trust to vote in respect of that particular special resolution) - only for the selling shareholders to be left with £21m of Trust shares with no 'tag' rights. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:42 - Jul 1 with 1741 views | fbreath |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:31 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Why does 21m guarantee something that 6m does not?
You're right that I see merit and value in the Trust staying involved in the running of the football club. Not for directors box privileges as you've a tad insultingly said before, but because I believe it's in the fans interests. And the club's interests too. I couldn't guess what would happen in a future sale, but wouldn't it be good to be able to be involved in the Process, see if they're someone that could be worked with and, if not, then exit? |
Assuming they include the trust in future sale, didn't happen last time even with trust director involved at board level and legally bound articles. |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:45 - Jul 1 with 1726 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:37 - Jul 1 by swancity |
You have the habit of providing a politicians reply. One that doesn't actually answer a question.
How can they present a 'better' case? Are there things that are being hidden? As all the evidence is completely clear cut. The next move has to be legal action. If you stop putting forward negatives and concentrate on the positives it will help. You're trying to convince everyone that legal isn't the best route when it's obvious that it is.
So what could go wrong? |
How do you think court cases work? Both sides will present their arguments, and a judge will decide which one is right. Our legal advice is that we've got a strong case. You ask anyone involved in the legal profession if theres such a thing as a guaranteed case, especially one such as this, and they'd laugh. Losing is actually possible.
I'm really not scaremongering. The members need to know the pros and cons, risks and rewards on offer in all scenarios. Ignoring the possibility of legal action going wrong would be the thing that is actually wrong. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:46 - Jul 1 with 1718 views | morningstar |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:31 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
Why does 21m guarantee something that 6m does not?
You're right that I see merit and value in the Trust staying involved in the running of the football club. Not for directors box privileges as you've a tad insultingly said before, but because I believe it's in the fans interests. And the club's interests too. I couldn't guess what would happen in a future sale, but wouldn't it be good to be able to be involved in the Process, see if they're someone that could be worked with and, if not, then exit? |
" as you've a tad insultingly said before"
So Nookie's being insulting, i'm being insulting?
Listen up everyone, if you tell it as it is,and Ux doesn't agree then you're being insulting. ....  | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:46 - Jul 1 with 1713 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:42 - Jul 1 by fbreath |
Assuming they include the trust in future sale, didn't happen last time even with trust director involved at board level and legally bound articles. |
There were no tag and drag clauses in the former articles. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:48 - Jul 1 with 1704 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:42 - Jul 1 by Nookiejack |
Huw Jenkins seemed to be very concerned about it though - getting his solicitor to write to the Trust asking them to confirm the Original Shareholders Agreement was not in place - was it for 2 Directors on the Board.
That indicates he is concerned about the warranty that the selling shareholders have given to the buyers.
The selling shareholders could be left holding £21m if the Trust's shares and totally locked in under the new articles - where the majority shareholder has all the power.
As I said earlier that would be quite ironic - that the selling shareholders stitched up the Trust under the new articles (not asking the Trust to vote in respect of that particular special resolution) - only for the selling shareholders to be left with £21m of Trust shares with no 'tag' rights. |
He may well be. You're still making several leaps of faith in terms of how that would play out though. Do you know what the remedy would be for that warranty? | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:50 - Jul 1 with 1695 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 22:13 - Jul 1 by Uxbridge |
I hope this question comes out the right way, as I'm genuinely interested.
Do you want us to get relegated to League 1? |
I think 47 clubs have now played in the PL.
Promotion and relegation are extremely fluid.
It's not a question of do you want the club to be relegated - it is a question of statistical inevitability.
Take out the top 7 clubs with their enormous income streams - then that leaves 3 out of 13 in a mini league for relegation. That's about 1 in 4 chance - 1 in 4 seasons it is likely we will be relegated.
You can also add that teams like Stoke are financed by the bet365 family - Bournemouth by a Billionaire.
I am just being realistic. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
