| Jake Silverstein 19:10 - Aug 7 with 17548 views | Treforys_Jack |
So another shareholder, good news or not ? |  | | |  |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:17 - Aug 10 with 2149 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:09 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
So what do you value the club at Lisa? £30m? 40m ? £50m? I envisage an independant valuation and a couple of meetings for explanation. Otherwise they would have just done it. Other shareholders will need consideration time for such a chunky investment. At no time have I suggest it is anything other than speculation. |
If convertible debt is issued, as seems to have been the proposal, the conversion rate is specified, so a valuation is done and agreed.
You are fixating on a percentage, an investment amount and current shareholders maintaining their ownership. None of which has any basis in truth as far as I can see. |  | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:39 - Aug 10 with 2134 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:47 - Aug 10 by swancity |
Can someone please clear up for me how the provision of a loan at an undisclosed interest rate can provide him with a seat on the Board ?
Many thanks |
Good question. Would be very interested to know the formal response.
As you say, currently it is reported as merely a loan, and it would also be interesting to know what interest rate is being paid. But a loan, not an investment, similar to many loans both from banks and from shareholders that we have regularly taken out in the past.
As I understand, new shares cannot be issued without offering them on a pro rata basis to existing shareholders. So it seems share dilution begins. A perfectly valid way to raise funds, and an important and long warned of outcome of the sellout.
The reason why legal action is our only viable action, given experienced Counsel rated our case as strong. |  | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:57 - Aug 10 with 2118 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:39 - Aug 10 by chad |
Good question. Would be very interested to know the formal response.
As you say, currently it is reported as merely a loan, and it would also be interesting to know what interest rate is being paid. But a loan, not an investment, similar to many loans both from banks and from shareholders that we have regularly taken out in the past.
As I understand, new shares cannot be issued without offering them on a pro rata basis to existing shareholders. So it seems share dilution begins. A perfectly valid way to raise funds, and an important and long warned of outcome of the sellout.
The reason why legal action is our only viable action, given experienced Counsel rated our case as strong. |
Legal action is clearly not the only viable option. One option is waiting until the club gets back in to the Premier League before putting themselves up for sale. Not selling at all is another option and accepting dilution with no loss of value. Buying new shares while the price is cheap is presumably another option. The QC said legal option was the "last resort" option, I recall. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:57 - Aug 10 with 2117 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 10:55 - Aug 8 by AndyCole |
Don’t be slaggin off other posters who make decent points when all you Do is make stupid points |
That's Avery good point but let him off the (Dr) Hook, he's got a trip to Galveston coming up!
On the OP, I read the statement, read what the trust said and while I feel quite dubious about this, we'll only know with the passage of time if this is good or not.
Lets face it, if the Yanks hadn't done what they have done we'd be screwed now and I was against them too, at one point. Now I feel we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Still, I didn't like reading that we had made a bid for a striker who, if he signed would probably be straight off to DC United on loan! | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:32 - Aug 10 with 2035 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:57 - Aug 10 by Catullus |
That's Avery good point but let him off the (Dr) Hook, he's got a trip to Galveston coming up!
On the OP, I read the statement, read what the trust said and while I feel quite dubious about this, we'll only know with the passage of time if this is good or not.
Lets face it, if the Yanks hadn't done what they have done we'd be screwed now and I was against them too, at one point. Now I feel we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Still, I didn't like reading that we had made a bid for a striker who, if he signed would probably be straight off to DC United on loan! |
I realy like the idea of interaction with DC United. Probably most of us on here are experienced wisened types seen the world and well travelled. Imagine though if you were Joe Lewis or Tivonge Rushesha barely 20 and the boss says. "How do you fancy 12 months in Washington DC on loan?" "Torquay Utd are also interested". Joe and Tiv might say Im off to buy a scarf, jacket and thick socks. A great life experience. I saw online Swansea u13 play in tournament in Los Angeles beating the Galaxy. Others went to south Africa a 2 or 3 years ago. Its a win win. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:35 - Aug 10 with 1993 views | Highjack |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:32 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I realy like the idea of interaction with DC United. Probably most of us on here are experienced wisened types seen the world and well travelled. Imagine though if you were Joe Lewis or Tivonge Rushesha barely 20 and the boss says. "How do you fancy 12 months in Washington DC on loan?" "Torquay Utd are also interested". Joe and Tiv might say Im off to buy a scarf, jacket and thick socks. A great life experience. I saw online Swansea u13 play in tournament in Los Angeles beating the Galaxy. Others went to south Africa a 2 or 3 years ago. Its a win win. |
They wouldn’t get a visa. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:39 - Aug 10 with 1986 views | Swanjaxs |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:32 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I realy like the idea of interaction with DC United. Probably most of us on here are experienced wisened types seen the world and well travelled. Imagine though if you were Joe Lewis or Tivonge Rushesha barely 20 and the boss says. "How do you fancy 12 months in Washington DC on loan?" "Torquay Utd are also interested". Joe and Tiv might say Im off to buy a scarf, jacket and thick socks. A great life experience. I saw online Swansea u13 play in tournament in Los Angeles beating the Galaxy. Others went to south Africa a 2 or 3 years ago. Its a win win. |
"I really like the idea of interaction with DC United..
Just fack off (sic) |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:54 - Aug 10 with 1969 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
They will not get visa if either of them had criminal records. If they did they would not be kept on anyway. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jake Silverstein on 20:56 - Aug 10 with 1965 views | jasper_T |
We don't have that sort of relationship with DC. And if we're spending money on strikers who can score goals at League One level they're needed here. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:08 - Aug 10 with 1939 views | Swanjaxs |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:54 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They will not get visa if either of them had criminal records. If they did they would not be kept on anyway. |
Your missing the point spectacularly..
Why would any true jack want anything to do with DC United?
Open your feckin eyes | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:50 - Aug 10 with 1914 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:08 - Aug 10 by Swanjaxs |
Your missing the point spectacularly..
Why would any true jack want anything to do with DC United?
Open your feckin eyes |
This week has been a terrible shock for Trust membership paying 'True Jack'. He thought the 'Yanks' were assest stripping hedge funders. In fact it looks as if the US owners will invest a few million into Swansea City and maintain low debt to cover the likely loss of gate reciepts. This does not fit the narrative of 'True jack'. The DC Unitd owners and their associates are now keeping the club solvent. Without them the club will go bust. This is not a good time to go bust. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:33 - Aug 10 with 1888 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:50 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This week has been a terrible shock for Trust membership paying 'True Jack'. He thought the 'Yanks' were assest stripping hedge funders. In fact it looks as if the US owners will invest a few million into Swansea City and maintain low debt to cover the likely loss of gate reciepts. This does not fit the narrative of 'True jack'. The DC Unitd owners and their associates are now keeping the club solvent. Without them the club will go bust. This is not a good time to go bust. |
Any financial crisis will see a certain amount of panic, while some are panicking there are always clever people who keep their heads, plan ahead and come out winning. I can't agree that this is investment as long as it's a loan. What interest is being charged? Will it dilute the trusts shares value? Will it, in the long run be a good thing for SCFC?
We'll all have to wait and see. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:00 - Aug 10 with 1863 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:50 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This week has been a terrible shock for Trust membership paying 'True Jack'. He thought the 'Yanks' were assest stripping hedge funders. In fact it looks as if the US owners will invest a few million into Swansea City and maintain low debt to cover the likely loss of gate reciepts. This does not fit the narrative of 'True jack'. The DC Unitd owners and their associates are now keeping the club solvent. Without them the club will go bust. This is not a good time to go bust. |
Given it is currently merely another loan, is it not actually adding to the debt? | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:12 - Aug 10 with 1855 views | theloneranger |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:54 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They will not get visa if either of them had criminal records. If they did they would not be kept on anyway. |
Why wouldn't they be kept on??
We actually signed a player found guilty of burglary.!! |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 00:12 - Aug 11 with 1825 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:00 - Aug 10 by chad |
Given it is currently merely another loan, is it not actually adding to the debt? |
The BBC state probaby from briefings " The loan - matched by one from Kaplan and Levien - is expected to be converted into shares at a later date, with other shareholders given the option to invest or see their shares diluted." Its an investment. New money and substantial. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 07:24 - Aug 11 with 1777 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:32 - Aug 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I realy like the idea of interaction with DC United. Probably most of us on here are experienced wisened types seen the world and well travelled. Imagine though if you were Joe Lewis or Tivonge Rushesha barely 20 and the boss says. "How do you fancy 12 months in Washington DC on loan?" "Torquay Utd are also interested". Joe and Tiv might say Im off to buy a scarf, jacket and thick socks. A great life experience. I saw online Swansea u13 play in tournament in Los Angeles beating the Galaxy. Others went to south Africa a 2 or 3 years ago. Its a win win. |
Why would we loan out Rushesha? Our squad is so thin he ended up on the bench for our biggest game in years. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 07:46 - Aug 11 with 1772 views | swancity |
“ I really like the idea of interaction with DC United “
 | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 09:18 - Aug 11 with 1742 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 00:12 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The BBC state probaby from briefings " The loan - matched by one from Kaplan and Levien - is expected to be converted into shares at a later date, with other shareholders given the option to invest or see their shares diluted." Its an investment. New money and substantial. |
No it is currently a loan, just like many loans we have had before. And as a loan it (and the match loan from Steve and Jason) is added to the Club’s debt.
It cannot currently be a share issue, because share purchase has not been offered on a pro rata basis to the Trust.
What is expected at a later date and what actually happens in the real world are 2 different things. Ask the previous Governor of the Bank of England ;) Or even ask Steve and Jason, whose assuredness was such they (thankfully IMHO) failed to even honour that massively advantageous deal that the Trust gifted them.
Given the pending legal action relating to unfair prejudice, it may be in the interests of Mr Kaplin and Mr Levien to think twice before diluting the Trusts shares, without full and frank consultation and agreement.
So it is not an investment, it is a loan, how ever much you try to reimagineer It.
As for substantial, depends what you call substantial. Ten bob (although one was more than enough) or £10 million? Perhaps you could enlighten us given you seem to be claiming this as hard fact. Perhaps you could also enlighten us on any interest payable on the loans, and payback and priority conditions attached to the loans. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:09 - Aug 11 with 1638 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 09:18 - Aug 11 by chad |
No it is currently a loan, just like many loans we have had before. And as a loan it (and the match loan from Steve and Jason) is added to the Club’s debt.
It cannot currently be a share issue, because share purchase has not been offered on a pro rata basis to the Trust.
What is expected at a later date and what actually happens in the real world are 2 different things. Ask the previous Governor of the Bank of England ;) Or even ask Steve and Jason, whose assuredness was such they (thankfully IMHO) failed to even honour that massively advantageous deal that the Trust gifted them.
Given the pending legal action relating to unfair prejudice, it may be in the interests of Mr Kaplin and Mr Levien to think twice before diluting the Trusts shares, without full and frank consultation and agreement.
So it is not an investment, it is a loan, how ever much you try to reimagineer It.
As for substantial, depends what you call substantial. Ten bob (although one was more than enough) or £10 million? Perhaps you could enlighten us given you seem to be claiming this as hard fact. Perhaps you could also enlighten us on any interest payable on the loans, and payback and priority conditions attached to the loans. |
Call me old fashioned but I trust the good old BBC. As a simple fan I would like to see the 'converted debt' be converted to equity soon with the agreement of the minor shareholders and not recorded as a debt. A minor shareholder with no cash is no use to the club as a whole. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:28 - Aug 11 with 1624 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:09 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Call me old fashioned but I trust the good old BBC. As a simple fan I would like to see the 'converted debt' be converted to equity soon with the agreement of the minor shareholders and not recorded as a debt. A minor shareholder with no cash is no use to the club as a whole. |
Don’t think it’s the style of these guys to consult major shareholders on such moves, let alone minor shareholders. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:17 - Aug 11 with 1583 views | Badlands |
| Jake Silverstein on 00:12 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The BBC state probaby from briefings " The loan - matched by one from Kaplan and Levien - is expected to be converted into shares at a later date, with other shareholders given the option to invest or see their shares diluted." Its an investment. New money and substantial. |
If it doesn't get converted to shares it's a loan and counted as debt.
If it is converted to share it probably means each share will be devalued (3 worth and as a %age of the club) but then is no longer a loan.
Birch suggested, April (ash) 2019) the dilution of shares was one possible way raising funds. So no one should be surprised at that suggestion.
The sort of money being suggested would only be enough to keep borrowing down and get us through the current national financial calamity. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:14 - Aug 11 with 1506 views | builthjack |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:38 - Aug 9 by thornabyswan |
So would you prefer if he just gave us some cash like a charity donation.
Invest or not they cant win.
Pretend jake is from Llandovery or Skewen all will be ok then. [Post edited 9 Aug 2020 16:41]
|
I wouldn't trust the 2 American owners, and I certainly wouldn't trust this Silver fella. Neither would I trust Birch. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:55 - Aug 12 with 1426 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:09 - Aug 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Call me old fashioned but I trust the good old BBC. As a simple fan I would like to see the 'converted debt' be converted to equity soon with the agreement of the minor shareholders and not recorded as a debt. A minor shareholder with no cash is no use to the club as a whole. |
I am sure you are not a simple fan, by the way you introduce anti legal action made up nonsense, as if it were fact
Hopefully you understand now it is a loan and it is an additional debt to the Club, just the same as the many other loans we have taken out in the past.
It is not ‘converted debt’ as you state, and will not become so, unless at some time in the future that debt of the club (the loan) is converted (repaid with equity, i.e. shares in the Club). Perhaps you mean convertible debt.
As has been explained to you there are many reasons why it may not be converted, but you may rest assured that the person providing the loan will be in the driving seat and will only convert the loan if it is in his own best interests.
Take for instance the initial deal that was agreed by the Trust and the new majority owners (on which the new majority owners unilaterally withdrew from despite having agreed it). Of the many beneficial parts of that deal to the new majority owners (such as the right to force us to sell all our shares at a time and price and to an owner of their choosing). It also included a clause to allow them at their choice to later buy additional shares off the Trust at a set price. If at that time the Club had tanked, do you think the new majority owners would have exercised that option? | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 15:24 - Aug 12 with 1391 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:55 - Aug 12 by chad |
I am sure you are not a simple fan, by the way you introduce anti legal action made up nonsense, as if it were fact
Hopefully you understand now it is a loan and it is an additional debt to the Club, just the same as the many other loans we have taken out in the past.
It is not ‘converted debt’ as you state, and will not become so, unless at some time in the future that debt of the club (the loan) is converted (repaid with equity, i.e. shares in the Club). Perhaps you mean convertible debt.
As has been explained to you there are many reasons why it may not be converted, but you may rest assured that the person providing the loan will be in the driving seat and will only convert the loan if it is in his own best interests.
Take for instance the initial deal that was agreed by the Trust and the new majority owners (on which the new majority owners unilaterally withdrew from despite having agreed it). Of the many beneficial parts of that deal to the new majority owners (such as the right to force us to sell all our shares at a time and price and to an owner of their choosing). It also included a clause to allow them at their choice to later buy additional shares off the Trust at a set price. If at that time the Club had tanked, do you think the new majority owners would have exercised that option? |
No it is different from other loans in one very particular way. That is the gentleman is joining the Board. This tells me clearly that the gentleman wants to make a commitment to the club over and beyond that of a simple loan. His words on the website seem to indicate this. Clearly he has some sort of understanding with the majority owners as to how things will develop in the future with respect to his ownership of risks. Clearly if the club is in desperate straits he can add clauses for his own benefit. These can be offset by the very hgh potential rewards of promotion in negiociation. The US owners are experienced business people. The existing owners have also given the club money and the BBC says they want to convert into equity. An apparent obstacle is getting an agreement with the minor shreholders which they do not currently have. I am anti legal action as it is ruinous to the cub and the LAST RESORT option. I did not say this the QC did. Last resorts are not to be taken lightly.
The whole issue of 'drag on' causes and 'tag on' clauses is somthing I have become aware of and is something owners must consider very carefully after advice. All the other shareholders appeared to find a mutually beneficial agreement. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:04 - Aug 12 with 1329 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 15:24 - Aug 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
No it is different from other loans in one very particular way. That is the gentleman is joining the Board. This tells me clearly that the gentleman wants to make a commitment to the club over and beyond that of a simple loan. His words on the website seem to indicate this. Clearly he has some sort of understanding with the majority owners as to how things will develop in the future with respect to his ownership of risks. Clearly if the club is in desperate straits he can add clauses for his own benefit. These can be offset by the very hgh potential rewards of promotion in negiociation. The US owners are experienced business people. The existing owners have also given the club money and the BBC says they want to convert into equity. An apparent obstacle is getting an agreement with the minor shreholders which they do not currently have. I am anti legal action as it is ruinous to the cub and the LAST RESORT option. I did not say this the QC did. Last resorts are not to be taken lightly.
The whole issue of 'drag on' causes and 'tag on' clauses is somthing I have become aware of and is something owners must consider very carefully after advice. All the other shareholders appeared to find a mutually beneficial agreement. |
As I said ...
Hopefully you understand now it is a loan and it is an additional debt to the Club, just the same as the many other loans we have taken out in the past.
The fact that the loan is made by a person who is being given a place on the Board and may or may not at some later date decide to convert it into shares, depending if he considers that advantageous to him at the time; makes no difference to the fact that it is a loan and an additional debt to the club just like other loans.
Same for any match loans made by the new majority owners. Although to describe any loan as ‘giving the Club money’ is something of a misrepresentation.
I am sure the US owners are experienced business people. Does make it rather baffling why they would admit on tape, to actions that clearly amounted to collusion on the sale, to keep the Trust in the dark until it was largely sewn up between them.
So why do you say ‘an apparent obstacle is getting an agreement with the minor shareholders which they do not currently have’
Where do you get this information from? Or are you just making stuff up yet again? Didn’t you previously say the delay was sorting out the admin? Until Lisa corrected you. You do understand they are entitled to issue new shares on their own authority. The rights of the minor shareholders are to decide if they want to buy the shares they are entitled to be offered to maintain their percentage share in the club. As far as I am aware the Trust has not been offered shares. And given the some time in the future quote I think it is fairly obvious the new director wants to suck it and see before deciding if actually investing in the company (rather than making a financial loan) is beneficial to him.
Of course legal action is a last resort. I am sure those with an eye on the main chance relied on this, whilst lying and cheating to line their own pockets, and deliberately placing the Trust in such a disadvantageous position, riding roughshod over us. But after bending over backwards to agree a deal which the new majority owners unilaterally backed out of despite it being massively advantageous to them. Then again repeatedly excluding the Trust and Blanking the Trust when they tried to move forward. So I think that destination has been reached.
The resolution is in the hands of those that put the Trust in this position, if they wish to surprise us and finally behave in a honourable manner and pay up for the shares they made worthless at the price they were valued at at that time, circa £21 million.
But my how you have come on, didn’t understand what a loan was and in a few days all drag and tag ;) | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
