| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:46 - Apr 4 with 1628 views | DafyddHuw |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 10:25 - Apr 4 by Shaky |
Let me ask you this, Desmond: If you buy shares in British Telecom, have you made an investment?
If you believe the answer to be yes, then shut the fcuk up about this investment/non-investment business. It is quite simply trifling semantics that impresses only those who don't really have any conception of what is going on.
Do you really think that those who have just spunked £70 million to buy control of the club have not considered and modelled the possibility that they might have to inject additional financing into the club?
This is a red herring. |
Bullshit.
Say you want to sell your house for £250K and I agree to buy it. After the house has been bought, how much money has been invested in the house?
£0.
It's really not rocket surgery. |  | |  |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:50 - Apr 4 with 1623 views | swancity |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:46 - Apr 4 by DafyddHuw |
Bullshit.
Say you want to sell your house for £250K and I agree to buy it. After the house has been bought, how much money has been invested in the house?
£0.
It's really not rocket surgery. |
I think you'll find that is then a £250000 investment. |  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:51 - Apr 4 with 1619 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 11:52 - Apr 4 by Loyal |
You will know from your long experience of Swansea City matters Nick that these questions won't be answered, and there desont seem too many people prepared to ask them.
These profile matters should be asked by the Trust and the answers made public from the forum.
But as I said. |
They might not have put up their money at all. They might just be representing a fund through Swansea Football LLC, the Holding Company.
No one seems to know who are the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of it. | | | |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:53 - Apr 4 with 1610 views | monmouth |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:46 - Apr 4 by DafyddHuw |
Bullshit.
Say you want to sell your house for £250K and I agree to buy it. After the house has been bought, how much money has been invested in the house?
£0.
It's really not rocket surgery. |
Or indeed brain science...
Thing is though, you WOULD have invested £250k in the house, either to use, rent out, or hope to accrue a capital gain. What is fair to say is that the house has had no investment in it. So it's all a matter of perspective. The americans have made an investment in the club (for themselves), the club has received no investment for itself. Jenkins lies when he talks of investment in the club to stupid reporters, the Americans tell the truth when they say they have invested in the club.
Then the moron rporters conflate the two viewpoints and talk shit. |  |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:57 - Apr 4 with 1598 views | vetchonian |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:50 - Apr 4 by swancity |
I think you'll find that is then a £250000 investment. |
I think the point that is getting missed is
whilst the Americans have invested circa £70m in buying the club the club has not seen the benefit if that investment the Americans have benfeited from securing an asset similar to the purchase of the house and the sellouts have benefited to the tune of ? just like the seller of the house does in the meanwhile the "worth" of the club like the house remains the same. The sellouts told us all the sale was necessary to take us to the next level so far what additional "investment" has been made to start this process?
We can argue all day about the semantics of investment and the word investment but to date all the Americans have done is paid to buy the club with the hope of making a return? | |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:01 - Apr 4 with 1585 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:06 - Apr 4 by EasternJack |
Again, perspective.
Do you think that the new owners spent £70M without a business plan that didn't implicitly aim to improve value of the club over a defined period of time?
I'd argue that diversifying and maximising our revenue streams through commercial expertise and global contacts is a much better/sustainable measure of "financial benefit" than a one-off cash injection. |
Again, that's not really the point of why the "investment in the club" point gets raised. It's because the sale was advertised as financially benefiting the club.
I totally agree with your last sentence. Whether there is evidence of that to date is an open question. |  |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:01 - Apr 4 with 1585 views | swancity |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:57 - Apr 4 by vetchonian |
I think the point that is getting missed is
whilst the Americans have invested circa £70m in buying the club the club has not seen the benefit if that investment the Americans have benfeited from securing an asset similar to the purchase of the house and the sellouts have benefited to the tune of ? just like the seller of the house does in the meanwhile the "worth" of the club like the house remains the same. The sellouts told us all the sale was necessary to take us to the next level so far what additional "investment" has been made to start this process?
We can argue all day about the semantics of investment and the word investment but to date all the Americans have done is paid to buy the club with the hope of making a return? |
Yes thank you for stating the obvious
Zilch money put in to imrove the club it seems by the new owners....have they got any to put in? Ask them tonight. Whether you get an honest answer is another matter. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:04 - Apr 4 with 1577 views | DafyddHuw |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:50 - Apr 4 by swancity |
I think you'll find that is then a £250000 investment. |
So in what way is the house £250K better off? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:27 - Apr 4 with 1545 views | MoscowJack |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 12:22 - Apr 4 by Uxbridge |
From what I've seen, on the second point you're incorrect, and anyway this is just a loan secured against a specific future income stream.
On the "why not invested their own money" question, that's an interesting one on many levels. Also, what are we talking about .... a share issue or loans? I'd be interested to know what people think on that, and the potential impact it could have on the Trust shareholding. |
Hi Ux,
I've just had an email from someone privately basically saying the same as you....that I was wrong. I presume that when you say "wrong" you mean that the cost of borrowing is not that low, or at least not for a football club, maybe?
Either way, the owners COULD and probably WOULD have self-funded cheaper, but would that have meant the Trust matching the funding?
Also, just a side-thought....if the new owners are getting north of 10% on their other investments (that's a big IF but that's the business they're in) and can borrow at 3%-5%, why would they want to use their own money?
I know I'm sort of answering my own question (probably wrongly again!) but these are the things I wonder about when I think about HJ's comments about "taking us to a new level", or whatever the actual quote was.
So far, I've seen nothing that shows the Americans have done anything differently to the old board. They borrowed against the Ayew income in the same way the old board borrowed against the Bony money from Man Citeh. We seem to have the same limitations, financially, that the old board had.
Rome wasn't built in a day, which is why I don't think it's fair to give the new COO/Commercial guy too much grief. He's starting from below scratch and I would guess that his hands are tied in many respects (due to long-term agreements in place already). Still, it would be really good to hear what the plans are to increase commercial revenue, apart from the obvious stadium naming rights and kit sponsorship. | |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:28 - Apr 4 with 1540 views | Nookiejack |
An interesting question to ask would be - what date did you communicate to the Trust Supporter Director that you would be taking control of the club. | | | |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:39 - Apr 4 with 1520 views | Darran |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 15:57 - Apr 4 by vetchonian |
I think the point that is getting missed is
whilst the Americans have invested circa £70m in buying the club the club has not seen the benefit if that investment the Americans have benfeited from securing an asset similar to the purchase of the house and the sellouts have benefited to the tune of ? just like the seller of the house does in the meanwhile the "worth" of the club like the house remains the same. The sellouts told us all the sale was necessary to take us to the next level so far what additional "investment" has been made to start this process?
We can argue all day about the semantics of investment and the word investment but to date all the Americans have done is paid to buy the club with the hope of making a return? |
Its quite bizarre that so many people are missing it too. |  |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:42 - Apr 4 with 1515 views | swancity |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:04 - Apr 4 by DafyddHuw |
So in what way is the house £250K better off? |
It's not.
But it could be if the new owners have money to put on a conservatory, or a nice swimming pool. Or may be they might let it decay, may be they'll just mow the lawns and do the minimum. That's what seems to be happening. Hoping that their investment will increase in value.... | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:43 - Apr 4 with 1508 views | Darran |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:42 - Apr 4 by swancity |
It's not.
But it could be if the new owners have money to put on a conservatory, or a nice swimming pool. Or may be they might let it decay, may be they'll just mow the lawns and do the minimum. That's what seems to be happening. Hoping that their investment will increase in value.... |
Have I actuality really just read that?
Fuçking hell. | |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:46 - Apr 4 with 1498 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:27 - Apr 4 by MoscowJack |
Hi Ux,
I've just had an email from someone privately basically saying the same as you....that I was wrong. I presume that when you say "wrong" you mean that the cost of borrowing is not that low, or at least not for a football club, maybe?
Either way, the owners COULD and probably WOULD have self-funded cheaper, but would that have meant the Trust matching the funding?
Also, just a side-thought....if the new owners are getting north of 10% on their other investments (that's a big IF but that's the business they're in) and can borrow at 3%-5%, why would they want to use their own money?
I know I'm sort of answering my own question (probably wrongly again!) but these are the things I wonder about when I think about HJ's comments about "taking us to a new level", or whatever the actual quote was.
So far, I've seen nothing that shows the Americans have done anything differently to the old board. They borrowed against the Ayew income in the same way the old board borrowed against the Bony money from Man Citeh. We seem to have the same limitations, financially, that the old board had.
Rome wasn't built in a day, which is why I don't think it's fair to give the new COO/Commercial guy too much grief. He's starting from below scratch and I would guess that his hands are tied in many respects (due to long-term agreements in place already). Still, it would be really good to hear what the plans are to increase commercial revenue, apart from the obvious stadium naming rights and kit sponsorship. |
Just that the way this borrowing is done is as cheap as any other potential external source they could get. Football clubs don't always get the best rates on unsecured loans, for obvious reasons.
Have the Americans acted differently from the way the club has in previous years? Not massively, I'd agree. There have been no mad splurges, living largely within existing means, although spending money without any incoming in January could be argued as different ... although that was by bringing forward future transfer income.
Not that I wouldn't like the cultural change at the club to be a bit quicker than it has been. Although I suspect Pearlman has his work cut out ... | |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:51 - Apr 4 with 1474 views | Darran |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:46 - Apr 4 by Uxbridge |
Just that the way this borrowing is done is as cheap as any other potential external source they could get. Football clubs don't always get the best rates on unsecured loans, for obvious reasons.
Have the Americans acted differently from the way the club has in previous years? Not massively, I'd agree. There have been no mad splurges, living largely within existing means, although spending money without any incoming in January could be argued as different ... although that was by bringing forward future transfer income.
Not that I wouldn't like the cultural change at the club to be a bit quicker than it has been. Although I suspect Pearlman has his work cut out ... |
"although spending money without any incoming in January could be argued as different"
Where'd the Ayew and Williams money go? (And Shelvey come to that) [Post edited 4 Apr 2017 16:54]
| |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:55 - Apr 4 with 1464 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:51 - Apr 4 by Darran |
"although spending money without any incoming in January could be argued as different"
Where'd the Ayew and Williams money go? (And Shelvey come to that) [Post edited 4 Apr 2017 16:54]
|
Shelvey largely went on Paloschi.
Baston cost more than WIlliams went for
The Ayew money largely went in January
And that ignores all the other stuff going on. Fees, wages etc. It's a bit simplistic trying to match up individual transfers like that. | |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:55 - Apr 4 with 1463 views | MoscowJack |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:46 - Apr 4 by Uxbridge |
Just that the way this borrowing is done is as cheap as any other potential external source they could get. Football clubs don't always get the best rates on unsecured loans, for obvious reasons.
Have the Americans acted differently from the way the club has in previous years? Not massively, I'd agree. There have been no mad splurges, living largely within existing means, although spending money without any incoming in January could be argued as different ... although that was by bringing forward future transfer income.
Not that I wouldn't like the cultural change at the club to be a bit quicker than it has been. Although I suspect Pearlman has his work cut out ... |
Spending money without income in January was probably due to us not being able to sell many players that we didn't want/need and getting the loan for the Ayew revenue. This is exactly the same as would have happened under the old board, in my opinion, especially as that's what they've done before.
I wonder what we would be saying if they went out and spunked another 20m on a "special" player. Would be be rejoicing and saying "see, THIS is the sort of investment we were looking for" or would it be a case of "sh!t, how can the Trust match that?".
Do you know what the Trust's options are if, for example, we were to spend 10m or 20m more than we have in the summer? | |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 17:02 - Apr 4 with 1442 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:55 - Apr 4 by MoscowJack |
Spending money without income in January was probably due to us not being able to sell many players that we didn't want/need and getting the loan for the Ayew revenue. This is exactly the same as would have happened under the old board, in my opinion, especially as that's what they've done before.
I wonder what we would be saying if they went out and spunked another 20m on a "special" player. Would be be rejoicing and saying "see, THIS is the sort of investment we were looking for" or would it be a case of "sh!t, how can the Trust match that?".
Do you know what the Trust's options are if, for example, we were to spend 10m or 20m more than we have in the summer? |
Aye, I agree.
Well this is it isn't it. There are only two ways of financing things once the revenue is gone, either invest money or borrow it. How much borrowing would we be prepared for the club to take on? Lots of people wouldn't care. Some would of course. If we're talking about an injection of capital ... well, the Trust likely couldn't match, but also is player acquisition what we would want such things for? I'd limit such things to capex projects personally.
I don't think there's a Trust view as such on that, however I would have significant concerns. | |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 17:25 - Apr 4 with 1403 views | monmouth |
I struggle with some people's take on all this. As I see it, the facts are:
- The 'next level invesment' shit was a bald faced lie by Jenkins et al to justify their actions.
- If the Americans 'invest' further in the club, it'll be shares or loans
- If we 'splash the cash' through the point above, we could easily end up with two or three Bastons.
- The ONLY reason for transfer of ownership was to line the sellers pockets. there was no other point.
Personally I prefer the club to be run as it has been (or more to the point, looking at the last accounts, how we have maybe been hoodwinked that it has been) with low to non-existent debt, and all major expenditure and and returns on investment coming out of sustainable revenue streams, or a final sale on increase in value. I don't want my club to be Cardiff or Bolton ta very much. If I had the power over the purse strings, I could live with a loan for sensible capex, but only with a strong business plan, or to support future sustainability of the club.
I thought that's what the new television deal was meant to fund exactly that and why it was so vital last season to stay up. Although that's what Jenkins also said, when all the time he was merely cacking in his pants about losing his lottery win.
The time to really start worrying is when the yanks do 'invest', and the Trust needs to be all over that. That's when the club's future will be back in play. | |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 17:44 - Apr 4 with 1383 views | Shaky |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:42 - Apr 4 by swancity |
It's not.
But it could be if the new owners have money to put on a conservatory, or a nice swimming pool. Or may be they might let it decay, may be they'll just mow the lawns and do the minimum. That's what seems to be happening. Hoping that their investment will increase in value.... |
Not necessarily.
One way many of these fund type investors like Kaplan evaluate their investments is using something known as the Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
What this does is look at how much money you put in and whatever you get out at the end, then calculates something similar to the compound average annual return on your investment.
But because it uses compounding it incorporates and is sensitive to the time value of money.
In practice that means if you inject capital without anything to spend it on it is 'dead money' that dilutes the IRR. This is not good, and runs totally contrary to good investment practice. No guarantees, but that could easily and rationally explain why they haven't pulled out their wallets yet.
As such I would be asking:
1) What is the anticipated incremental investment commitment of the new owners?
2) How much is the capital expenditure budget over the next 3 years and what is the breakdown, and how is it expected to be financed?
Going round in circles whinging about the definition of investment does not help this important discussion to flow on a constructive basis. [Post edited 4 Apr 2017 17:46]
|  |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 17:54 - Apr 4 with 1365 views | EasternJack |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:01 - Apr 4 by Uxbridge |
Again, that's not really the point of why the "investment in the club" point gets raised. It's because the sale was advertised as financially benefiting the club.
I totally agree with your last sentence. Whether there is evidence of that to date is an open question. |
So I may be a bit naive here, but I'm making the assumption that the Trust board legally cannot disclose the information their SCFC board members are privy to.
However, at the very least, can you please confirm that the trust has line of sight (and input/approval) into the detailed business strategy that the new owners must be working on delivering? your post suggests not.... |  |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 17:54 - Apr 4 with 1364 views | Shaky |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 17:02 - Apr 4 by Uxbridge |
Aye, I agree.
Well this is it isn't it. There are only two ways of financing things once the revenue is gone, either invest money or borrow it. How much borrowing would we be prepared for the club to take on? Lots of people wouldn't care. Some would of course. If we're talking about an injection of capital ... well, the Trust likely couldn't match, but also is player acquisition what we would want such things for? I'd limit such things to capex projects personally.
I don't think there's a Trust view as such on that, however I would have significant concerns. |
"I don't think there's a Trust view as such on that, however I would have significant concerns. "
No offence, but unless the owners suddenly and unexpectedly cave in to the demands contained in the 'ultimatum' the Trust delivered - what? - last September, you have nothing to say on the subject of any relevance.
That is why you must press the button on legal action if the case is a good one. [Post edited 4 Apr 2017 17:55]
| |
| |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 18:13 - Apr 4 with 1331 views | DafyddHuw |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 16:42 - Apr 4 by swancity |
It's not.
But it could be if the new owners have money to put on a conservatory, or a nice swimming pool. Or may be they might let it decay, may be they'll just mow the lawns and do the minimum. That's what seems to be happening. Hoping that their investment will increase in value.... |
What investment?
Nothing's been invested in the club.
The Yanks have bought the club, thewy've invested nowt in it. | | | |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 18:21 - Apr 4 with 1319 views | Shaky |
| Trust Members’ Forum Announced on 18:13 - Apr 4 by DafyddHuw |
What investment?
Nothing's been invested in the club.
The Yanks have bought the club, thewy've invested nowt in it. |
They have made a commitment of £70 million in cash that's on the line here!
If I were them and you come in suggesting I've done nothing and dismiss that out of hand, I'd be royally fcuked off, especially if you don't give me a chance to set out my plans first.
Why do you want to gratuitously offend them? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
