| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 141059 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 19:28 - Jul 23 with 1875 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:18 - Jul 23 by 3swan |
Involvement is being on the board of the club and having access to certain information that we wouldn't if we were on the outside.
I agree that the Trust are limited in what they can achieve, and I'm not blind to that.
You put across the "tough" was the response seemingly." but is that fact?. The Trust could have put the case forward and the club said they needed a certain amount to cover the cost of the game.
I don't know the answer but there has been so much put forward as fact over the last few weeks it is difficult to know what the truth is.
What I do know is I am very wary of the owners, now the decision for me is having limited involvement or the legal route.
There is no given either way it is down to pros and cons |
But a seat on the board is menaingless if you have no say. Its an expensive season ticket. Thats it.
If you list the realistic pros and cons for each option it becomes a no brainer. Only one has the realistic "pro" of safeguarding the club for ever and that is by amassing the amount of money heeded to do that.
We have spent 10's of thousands on QC opinion who have said we have a strong legal case, we couldnt have realistically wished for a better response. That is as good as you get from a QC. We didnt receive that once, but twice.
So what has the greater risk? The unknown that could go horribly wrong at worst and still not give us enough shares to protect the club at best. Or the professional opinion that states a good chance of getting an amount which will certainly safeguard the club forever? The con being we lose and we get to keep the 21% anyway. We would of course surely do this on a no win no fee basis. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:29]
|  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:31 - Jul 23 with 1863 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:28 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
But a seat on the board is menaingless if you have no say. Its an expensive season ticket. Thats it.
If you list the realistic pros and cons for each option it becomes a no brainer. Only one has the realistic "pro" of safeguarding the club for ever and that is by amassing the amount of money heeded to do that.
We have spent 10's of thousands on QC opinion who have said we have a strong legal case, we couldnt have realistically wished for a better response. That is as good as you get from a QC. We didnt receive that once, but twice.
So what has the greater risk? The unknown that could go horribly wrong at worst and still not give us enough shares to protect the club at best. Or the professional opinion that states a good chance of getting an amount which will certainly safeguard the club forever? The con being we lose and we get to keep the 21% anyway. We would of course surely do this on a no win no fee basis. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:29]
|
You've made your mind up, so that's ok.
"Or the professional opinion that states a good chance of getting an amount which will certainly safeguard the club forever?"
You still give that as a given.
I am still open to the club being sold from one owner to another without the fans having a look in.
It can't be guaranteed |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:32 - Jul 23 with 1861 views | QJumpingJack |
Does the Swans board still pay for their season tickets?
I can remember in 2002, the board at that time informed the fans that they too paid for their season tickets. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:43 - Jul 23 with 1841 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:31 - Jul 23 by 3swan |
You've made your mind up, so that's ok.
"Or the professional opinion that states a good chance of getting an amount which will certainly safeguard the club forever?"
You still give that as a given.
I am still open to the club being sold from one owner to another without the fans having a look in.
It can't be guaranteed |
None of the 3 options can be guaranteed though. You are assuming only the legal route is not. None of them are.
The legal route is the only of the 3 options that has been twice confirmed by professionals as being strong option with the likely outcome being a positive one. Not to mention the result of which being a far greater one than the other two.
In any case of the three options, the Trust shares can be sold from under their feet to anyone, at any time, who whatever price. the Trust will have no say. I hope people realise that when voting. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:45]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:44 - Jul 23 with 1839 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 18:20 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Absolutely would be a venture capitalist, no real doubt about that. But eventually that WILL go wrong. It nearly did at the first attempt last year. So it is only a matter of time.
What position would you rather be in when that does happen? £21m in the bank earning interest and an ability to look for a consortium in which their goals and the Trusts can be mutually achieved seems a very favourable position to me.
The Trust is a not for profit organisation. We can be incredibly good partners for a venture capitalist as we could happily weight any financial benefits of owning the club in their favour, something no other partner would do. I would happily give them a predetermined % of profits in the form of a dividend that outnumbers what we take 80% to 20%.
For that £20m we would have enough shares to veto any dilution and contest any decisions made my the owners. We would be in as safe a position as we could wish to be in other than owning the club lock stock and barrel. |
What the fcuk are you talking about Mr Cokehead?
A few pages ago on this very thread you admitted you don't really understand any of this, and now you pretend to know how venture capitalists structure deals?
It's good you are passionate, but don't be such a dickhed. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:48 - Jul 23 with 1831 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:44 - Jul 23 by Shaky |
What the fcuk are you talking about Mr Cokehead?
A few pages ago on this very thread you admitted you don't really understand any of this, and now you pretend to know how venture capitalists structure deals?
It's good you are passionate, but don't be such a dickhed. |
What is your problem troll boy. Where did I say I dont understand this?
You either think I am someone else or you have a mental impairment. Im not sure which one it is as it stands.
Venture capitalists do not have a set way to structure deals you moron. It is structured in any such way that gives the best chance of a return. A high dividend % disproportionate to investment is hugely attractive.
Now contribute to the thread or leave us grown ups talk about the situstion. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:51 - Jul 23 with 1822 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:28 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
But a seat on the board is menaingless if you have no say. Its an expensive season ticket. Thats it.
If you list the realistic pros and cons for each option it becomes a no brainer. Only one has the realistic "pro" of safeguarding the club for ever and that is by amassing the amount of money heeded to do that.
We have spent 10's of thousands on QC opinion who have said we have a strong legal case, we couldnt have realistically wished for a better response. That is as good as you get from a QC. We didnt receive that once, but twice.
So what has the greater risk? The unknown that could go horribly wrong at worst and still not give us enough shares to protect the club at best. Or the professional opinion that states a good chance of getting an amount which will certainly safeguard the club forever? The con being we lose and we get to keep the 21% anyway. We would of course surely do this on a no win no fee basis. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:29]
|
Just noticed your edit
" We would of course surely do this on a no win no fee basis."
It’s all hypothetical figures as we don’t know the future sale date, or worth but taking what is known at the moment.
If we went on a no win no fee basis, then a win would result in 25% being taken (as I understand it)
So net figures
A win after tax and 25% fee
Just over £13m
In the accepting the offer after tax
Just over now £4m
£2m over 5 years
Further Potential £2.5 within 5 years
Further £xm from future sale of shares
The current belief is that we have been shafted by two boards, what’s to say that there is a viable alternative owner out there?
[Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:52]
| | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:51 - Jul 23 with 1820 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:48 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
What is your problem troll boy. Where did I say I dont understand this?
You either think I am someone else or you have a mental impairment. Im not sure which one it is as it stands.
Venture capitalists do not have a set way to structure deals you moron. It is structured in any such way that gives the best chance of a return. A high dividend % disproportionate to investment is hugely attractive.
Now contribute to the thread or leave us grown ups talk about the situstion. |
I've said it before and I'll say it again; you have no idea what you are talking about. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:53 - Jul 23 with 1809 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:51 - Jul 23 by Shaky |
I've said it before and I'll say it again; you have no idea what you are talking about. |
Ive said it before and ill say it again.. You either have me confused with someone else or have a mental impairment.
You are a disturbed individual in either case. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:56 - Jul 23 with 1802 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:43 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
None of the 3 options can be guaranteed though. You are assuming only the legal route is not. None of them are.
The legal route is the only of the 3 options that has been twice confirmed by professionals as being strong option with the likely outcome being a positive one. Not to mention the result of which being a far greater one than the other two.
In any case of the three options, the Trust shares can be sold from under their feet to anyone, at any time, who whatever price. the Trust will have no say. I hope people realise that when voting. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:45]
|
That's the point I have been making there is no guarantee on anything, every option has a risk, You have made your mind up. I still am open to seeing something concrete enough but it won't be coming.
The pros and cons could well change the balance before the cross goes in the box | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:56 - Jul 23 with 1799 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:51 - Jul 23 by 3swan |
Just noticed your edit
" We would of course surely do this on a no win no fee basis."
It’s all hypothetical figures as we don’t know the future sale date, or worth but taking what is known at the moment.
If we went on a no win no fee basis, then a win would result in 25% being taken (as I understand it)
So net figures
A win after tax and 25% fee
Just over £13m
In the accepting the offer after tax
Just over now £4m
£2m over 5 years
Further Potential £2.5 within 5 years
Further £xm from future sale of shares
The current belief is that we have been shafted by two boards, what’s to say that there is a viable alternative owner out there?
[Post edited 23 Jul 2017 19:52]
|
Then you understand wrong. The fee is capped at 20%. You are assuming that we can only negotiate the maximum fee. Which with our strength of case is absolutely nowhere near like being a realistic prospect.
Now do the sums correctly with the correct figures and we can look at it as a worst case, assuming we cannot negotiate a better legal win fee. Which we of course could. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:00 - Jul 23 with 1786 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:56 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Then you understand wrong. The fee is capped at 20%. You are assuming that we can only negotiate the maximum fee. Which with our strength of case is absolutely nowhere near like being a realistic prospect.
Now do the sums correctly with the correct figures and we can look at it as a worst case, assuming we cannot negotiate a better legal win fee. Which we of course could. |
"Now do the sums correctly with the correct figures"
Any need for that? I thought we were having a discussion
at 20% it would be close to £14.
Who knows if a different % could be negotiated, but as I said I was dealing in what we know. | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:00 - Jul 23 with 1785 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 19:56 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Then you understand wrong. The fee is capped at 20%. You are assuming that we can only negotiate the maximum fee. Which with our strength of case is absolutely nowhere near like being a realistic prospect.
Now do the sums correctly with the correct figures and we can look at it as a worst case, assuming we cannot negotiate a better legal win fee. Which we of course could. |
You don't go for no win no fee representaiton in a case like this, you fcuking dunce.
Risk analyst my arse.
 | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:02 - Jul 23 with 1774 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:00 - Jul 23 by 3swan |
"Now do the sums correctly with the correct figures"
Any need for that? I thought we were having a discussion
at 20% it would be close to £14.
Who knows if a different % could be negotiated, but as I said I was dealing in what we know. |
I apologise, I thought it was the resident troll that said that. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:04 - Jul 23 with 1766 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:02 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
I apologise, I thought it was the resident troll that said that. |
Troll?
It must have escaped your supposedly keen analytical brain who actually came up with the Trust's strong legal position, as well as 75% of the valid arguments you are putting forward.
Show some fcuking respect, Mr Cokehead. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 20:06]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:04 - Jul 23 with 1764 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:00 - Jul 23 by Shaky |
You don't go for no win no fee representaiton in a case like this, you fcuking dunce.
Risk analyst my arse.
|
Ok so its clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about then.
There are a host of UK companies that specialise in company disputes regarding unfair prejudice against shareholders.
Now you can continue to lie and contribute absolutely nothing to the thread, or you can take your meds and go to bed. I can see why you were banned from here. What a moron.  | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:04 - Jul 23 with 1762 views | 3swan |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:02 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
I apologise, I thought it was the resident troll that said that. |
Ok
xx
I've said my bit, so nothing to add, but cross still wavering over the box | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:07 - Jul 23 with 1753 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:04 - Jul 23 by Shaky |
Troll?
It must have escaped your supposedly keen analytical brain who actually came up with the Trust's strong legal position, as well as 75% of the valid arguments you are putting forward.
Show some fcuking respect, Mr Cokehead. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 20:06]
|
Yes, troll.
For the last week you have followed me around here like some lovesick puppy. Get a girlfriend, get a hobby, take up swimming.
This isnt healthy for you. You have even now started lying to add to your list of traits. Are you drinking? Genuine question.
Now dry your eyes and stop getting antsy because you believe people are stealing your thunder (thats the real issue isnt it) its tragic. Moron. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 20:09]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:15 - Jul 23 with 1718 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:07 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Yes, troll.
For the last week you have followed me around here like some lovesick puppy. Get a girlfriend, get a hobby, take up swimming.
This isnt healthy for you. You have even now started lying to add to your list of traits. Are you drinking? Genuine question.
Now dry your eyes and stop getting antsy because you believe people are stealing your thunder (thats the real issue isnt it) its tragic. Moron. [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 20:09]
|
You know, I am genuinely unsure whether you are an all day abuser of class A drugs, or whether you are Dimi.
Maybe in truth you are both! [Post edited 23 Jul 2017 20:16]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:18 - Jul 23 with 1711 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:18 - Jul 7 by E20Jack |
Thanks Nookie. I am sure they wont insist on drag rights for 5%, as such a small stake is not likely to scupper any future sale of their then 80+%.
The Americans only own 67% now. Assuming they agree and allow the Trust to keep 5% then they only buy 16% - taking their stake to 83%.
This is back of a postage stamp stuff too as I am no expert in the field, only the basics. But on a basic level it seems to cover everyones bases. |
You only know the basics then, except you don't.
xx | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:20 - Jul 23 with 1702 views | E20Jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:18 - Jul 23 by Shaky |
You only know the basics then, except you don't.
xx |
Shaky you are a troll. Plain and simple. You have had too much to drink or abused some substance and have come on the forum to shout at anyone you believe is stepping on your toes. Its embarassing.
Log off. Xx | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:28 - Jul 23 with 1679 views | Shaky |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:20 - Jul 23 by E20Jack |
Shaky you are a troll. Plain and simple. You have had too much to drink or abused some substance and have come on the forum to shout at anyone you believe is stepping on your toes. Its embarassing.
Log off. Xx |
Nope, I am simply shooting you down for bullshitting about matters of which you know absolutely nothing.
Whether you are trolling, off your head, or simply cocksure in your own stupidity I can not say for sure, but without doubt bullshitting on your scale does nothing for the case you claim to espouse. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 20:32 - Jul 23 with 1663 views | Dewi1jack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 17:52 - Jul 23 by MattG |
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that dragging the current owners through the courts will make the Trust an attractive business partner in the future?
Sorry, Dewi - I'm really not following you on this. |
Fair enough.
Anybody coming in as a consortium rather than as a single owner, will be requiring cash.
£15+ million CASH is what attracts plus the fact whatever consortium knows they get the fans straight onside without any risk of the said fans being able to out vote them.
An awful lot of rich people won't have £15+ million (after tax) just lying around doing nothing.
They'll have it tied up somewhere.
We're certainly a more attractive proposition than a loan for say £18 million
Word used was IF we go down the legal route.
Have already voted on the paper to indicate option 1 is a non starter for me.
I'm caught between option 2 and 3 and have EMailed the Trust directly to answer questions that will help me decide.
All these threads are actually helping by answering questions honestly (on the whole)
And I include Trust board members posting in them as well.
I think that's far more balanced and certainly more ambiguous than putting out voting papers pushing heavily for take the deal, because it's the only sensible option.
Sorry if someone else has posted similar. |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
