By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It's things like this which totally undermine this narrative that they significantly breached his contract and/or made the conditions untenable to justify his resignation (e.g., constructive dismissal).
Dowie asked for his release from Palace, and provided assurances that he was not about to take a job with Charlton and wanted to leave because he missed his family etc. Palace had previously refused Charlton permission to speak with Dowie, because Charlton were unwilling to pay the significant release fee. Following those assurances, Simon Jordan granted his release, but he took the Charlton job less than a week later. So Charlton got their man and didn't have to pay the fee (sound familiar...?).
Whilst the Judge in that case never determined whether he was constructively dismissed (as the trial dealt with a preliminary issue as to whether he deceived Simon Jordan into permitting his release), the underlying dispute was settled pretty promptly and by all accounts involved a hefty sum being paid by Dowie to Palace (in legal costs and compensation).
I have been pretty consistent with my posts on here that on an operational level, since 2016, the Club has been a joke. We can't effectively negotiate transfer fees (either inbound or outbound), we appear to run the Club at the behest of a vocal minority on social media, and we are renowned throughout football as being a soft touch.
I've seen quite a few lambast the Club for suing Russell Martin, but a football manager can't just decide to breach his contract and up sticks to join a divisional rival without any consequences. It's naïve to suggest otherwise and sends out a message that other clubs can come and poach our manager/players and we won't do anything because we don't want the negative PR. In my opinion, Russell Martin may have thought that Saints would cut a deal on his behalf or the Club wouldn't want to rock the boat and annoy fans. Unfortunately for him, that's not the case, and his apparent gamble has not paid off. I really feel for the guy but play stupid games and you win stupid prizes.
I see the masses on Twitter have already began to criticise the Club and the owners for enforcing their legal rights, and saying it's a bad move. Many said the same thing when Simon Jordan sued Ian Dowie, and we all know how that one ended...
The first half was a bit ridiculous. There's far too much grandstanding, and people trying to get cheap pops from the audience eg., the insults, the nonsense around Wussell Martin ("Key was Martin's signing!!!!"), the shouting down, the swearing under the breath and the laughing. The second half much better. Credit to all fans who showed up and asked Qs, even if I don't agree with some of the Qs or their behaviour.
But in all fairness, this is a product of the lack of trust between the fanbase and the Club. We've reached the stage where fans do not even trust anything that people within the Club are saying. For example, when Paul Watson said he was part of the football team at Luton was met with "no you weren't."
That's an issue that needs resolving asap, and it comes down to transparency and not taking people for mugs. Watson is taking a lot of flak about his comments about building a team. The vast majority of Sporting Directors up-and-down the country work as part of a larger team. For example, Newcastle, Man City, Brighton, Brentford all have HUGE teams which work from the bottom up. It seems to me that this is what the Club is trying to do with Paul Watson - so why not say that when he came in?! He was hailed as the second coming and someone who would be in solely in control, when in reality the Club should have said:
"Paul is the head of the department, but he's not scouting or finding players, that responsibility is with {insert}. He's not reviewing data, that responsibility is with {insert}. He is responsible for negotiating transfers and contracts. There is a collective responsibility amongst the team."
Whatever your feelings on his performance as Chairman, or him personally, I am not aware of executives at other clubs in EFL or PL agreeing to sit down with supporters on a semi-regular basis to speak about their concerns face-to-face (outside of the mandated EFL meetings).
It's pretty unprecedented to get this sort of access and whilst it doesn't excuse the shortcomings to date (of which there are quite a few!) it certainly goes a long way to put things right. Fair play.
I thought Chris and Rob asked the right questions and put Coleman under pressure. The reaction on Twitter is as expected. The teenagers have all come out with abuse aimed at the BBC because they expected two respected legitimate journalists to shout down Coleman, which was never going to happen.
I listened to the Mehmet Dalman interview (I can't believe I am about to write this...) and thought he was refreshingly honest about Profit & Sustainability Rules and how the EFL govern as regulator, so it was naturally disappointing to hear Coleman go into full evasion mode and give nothing answers.
What I will say is that the part about the data team and scouting network was interesting and, if true, extremely concerning. I'll give him credit for building those departments back up, but there's a reason why they were in a story state, and that's because they were neglected for years by our majority owners.
I don't give a flying feck about Nathan Jones. I'm more concerned at the absolute dross served up by our players tonight. No offence intended to any posters above me, but our fans have become obsessed with these ridiculous satellite issues. There's all sorts of people in director boxes around the country: opposing teams, people from the gambling industry, scouts, journalists from the Sun/Daily Mail, etc. It's hospitality at football, not the Garden of Eden.
We were outclassed tonight in every department. In my opinion, this is the issue when you give players Premier League wages, Premier League facilities, and use club resources to fix every aspect of their lives. There is no hunger in the team, and we are burdened by gutless, average players who are milking us week in week out. For example, whoever sanctioned the Jay Fulton contract extension should hang their head in shame. He's a lazy, useless tin of paint who should pack it in.
Simply put, our insistence on running the Club at the behest of "vibes" and teenagers on twitter has come back to haunt us. The players need to refund the away fans tonight, and we need three players incoming at an absolute minimum.
In all fairness, it's nice to see the Trust providing proactive updates to fans on departures from the Club. The debacle in the Summer re Julian Winter was embarrassing, so at least some lessons have been learned. I've never heard of Sam Porter, and doubt he played a role in the day to day running, but we have a right to know these things.
On a separate, but related note, I've found the Club's comms beyond the social media memes to be pretty crap for the last few years, and particularly this season. For example, the Club is charging supporters to see an Academy Game in the 4th Round of the FA Youth Cup. No explanation as to why this is the case, so it looks like the Trust has had to come in and fill in the gaps left by the Club with this post on Twitter/X:
- When Nigel Morris invested, the share price was £23.04 per share based on the Confirmation Statement filed with Companies House.
- There are 2,756,542 A and B shares in the Club, so the value of the shares is £63,510,727.68.
- However, when you deduct debt from that value (circa. £36,000,000 excluding the convertible loan notes which were converted into shares after the accounts were posted), this gives an equity value of £27,510,727.68.
- I rounded up this figure to £30,000,000 as it's easier to quote round numbers.
I appreciate it's a back-of-a-fag-packet calculation but in my opinion it's generally a good indicator of what the Club is worth, albeit it might be worth more if debt has been paid off since 2021/22 (we won't know until May 2024, when the accounts for 22/23 are posted).
Based on the last audited financial accounts which covered the 2021/22 season:
- Income (e.g., excl player sales) was £19,690,433.
- Total operating expenses (i.e., player wages, infrastructure running costs, academy, match day costs etc) were £40,372,255.
- Therefore, we spent £20,681,822 more than we brought in.
- However, the Club sold players for £10,878,312, and spent £2,652,815, which reduced losses by £8,225,497.
- This meant the total losses for 2021/22 were £12,338,093.
If someone wanted to purchase 100% of the Swans, then they will not get EFL approval until they provide proof of funds of the following:
- The Purchase Price (I suspect that is around £30,000,000 based on 100% of the Club).
- Running costs for Season 1 (pre-player transfers), so based on the difference between income/expenditure in 2021/22, that would be £20,681,822.
- Comprehensive business plans. Of course, if this business plan shows running costs can be reduced, this will reduce the sum needed in escrow.
Therefore, we will have to find someone who can cough up £50,681,822 and then potentially an additional £12,338,093 per season (assuming we can still maintain the level of player sales we have using our current dross squad).
I personally can't see anyone local putting up that kind of cash.
There’s a fair bit of prolix and hyperbole in there I don’t agree with, but I tend to agree with the core of your post Res.
The Owners take some flak online which I think crosses the line. Our fans clamour for more engagement, but then complain when the owners do engage because they don’t trust them. They’re caught in a catch 22.
I think some need to realise that if they want the owners gone, there needs to be a buyer willing to commit £20-£30m to purchase the Club, and then demonstrate to the EFL that they can cover the shortfall (circa £17m) for two seasons by submitting business plans. Effectively you need to find someone who suffers from abject stupidity to be willing to commit £64million towards a loss leading championship club over three years in the hope you win the lottery and gain promotion, and in return you get abuse. I can’t imagine there’s many of those people around, and we may just find ourself in a Wigan situation…
Absolutely. It's really, really poor. It looks like he's (finally) deleted his Twitter. Let's hope someone over the pond has talked some sense into him.
I think our ownership group are either thin skinned or completely naive. .
Any supporter with their head screwed on could’ve told Silverstein that messaging a teenage fan and being so “open” is a recipe for disaster. It demonstrates very poor judgment even if what he is saying is sensible (ie Russ is going to Saints and leaving us just like he did to MK, and wants to save face).
The Club pays a media team a wage to grab the bull by the horns and control all comms in and out of the Club. Imagine how they must be feeling seeing Silverstein cutting about on social media!
I've seen a lot of people being quite vocal about how the Trust has been diluted etc, but the only way the Trust can maintain a large stake in the Club is via fresh investment. If the Trust put £1million into the Club, at £17.85 a share (which is what the shares are worth according to the Companies House document), that's around 56,022 shares. That would be enough to push the Trust's stake up to 14-15% assuming the American owners don't match the investment.
Where does the £1million come from? Well if each fan in the Stadium over Easter gave at least £52, the Trust would have the funds to purchase more shares. Something tells me that if push came to shove, a lot of the vocal critics of the Trust and those bemoaning another dilution would scarper if asked to contribute money...
Anyway, I can't wait for the Club's accounts to be published so people fully understand just how crap the financial situation at the Club is. I'm dreading it.
The Trust confirmed it was Levien & Co and Jake Silverstein converting more loan notes into shares; so that brings the Club's debt down a further £6million.
Swansea's consistently shambolic defending isn't down to the owners. These players just don't look well drilled, disciplined or bothered. That is a coaching issue which needs to be sorted asap and if a former centre half can't sort it, he should bring in someone who can.
It would be good if anybody attending the Trust AGM this evening could ask the Trust Board what type of investment is being looked at (i.e., full sale or minority stake) and if the Chairman or Supporters' Director has met any potential investors. I'm not a Trust member so cannot attend (reserving judgement on that front for this season), but i'm taking the minutes at face value and it's a step in the right direction that the Trust knows what is going on behind the scenes.
You send a player on loan for one of two reasons: i) to put them in the shop window, or ii) to develop them and prepare them for first team football in the future.
Whittaker is no different. He is clearly talented and could *maybe* offer us something in the first team. But let's be realistic, he's a young kid and has played fewer than 100 professional games. If he plays for Swansea, he is ineligible to play for another team this season. There are a range of possibilities here. We could reject an offer, keep him, play him on Saturday, and he could get a career ending injury and suddenly he's no longer an asset for us. Imagine the uproar from some of our fans - "You should've taken the cash".
Against that backdrop, £1.5million is a good bit of business. We are a selling club, get used to it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
