| Trust Position Revisited 09:28 - Nov 7 with 12344 views | Shaky |
Now that some of the takeover hysteria has at least temporarily died down, I think it is time to go back and take another look at the Trust's statement last week issued when I was on holiday with my family over halfterm.
I have already mentioned how I think it generally makes the Trust's position look weak and marginalised; if you have to make your views known to fellow shareholders via what is in effect an open letter it just shows that ordinary channels of communication have completely broken down. This, for example, potentially offers an explanation why the Trust has been so unsuccessful in addressing some of the fans' widespread complaints over a whole range of ticketing issues with the club. To me it is a damning indictment of the whole focus and approach of a body that is within whisker of being the largest shareholder and represents substantially all of the club's customer base. Huge fail.
But going back to specifics of the statement I take particular exception to the following bit which in essence stakes out the Trust position: " . . .given the current strong position of the team and the club we do not believe that this is the correct time for the ownership or set up of the club to change."
The strong position of the club and the team could imply 2 things: the league position and/or the financial position.
If Phil meant the league position I think few outside the club would disagree this represents such an extreme short-sighted view that it must me satirical or some sort of wind-up. In other words if you think the club has now found its natural and permanent position in the prem within the top 6 you are delusional. Furthermore, if you glance at the bottom 6 in the championship you will see Wigan, Fulham, and Bolton, all clubs that have been considered well established in the prem within the last 4 or 5 years, illustrating how rapidly fortunes can reverse.
If he was referring to the financial position as strong, that is simply not true objectively. Certainly the club is currently self financing and the recent improvement in the TV money should help that, but at the same time investment in club infrastructure is required and operating costs are rising rapidly with the club's playing staff strategy - both in terms of wages and sign-on fees - already seemingly out of the window. Furthermore from what I can gather organisationally the club is understaffed and possibly underpaid, and that may be one of the reasons for subpar off-field performance in various areas.
Coping under the circumstances is not a "strong position". And as I have already argued in the past, the fact that none of the shareholders really have deep pockets and the ability to put new capital into the club in the event of a slide out of the prem is a serious potential weakness.
The time to raise capital is when you are strong and everybody is clamouring for a piece of you, not when you are seriously on the slide or the floor. Ask any capital raising expert and they will tell you this is likely to be the best time in the current market cycle to raise financing. ". . not. . .the correct time" as Phil claims is again objectively speaking nonsense. In terms of financial management the idea that now is the ideal time to strengthen the capital position represents sound, prudent management, whereas the opposing view that everything is fine does not.
That said do either of the proposals seemingly on the table from rival groups represent the right way forward? I am not an insider and have no clue whatsoever, but the alarming thing is that the Trust don't seem to have much in the way of hard facts either, and if they do now it seems to be knowledge that has only been acquired within the last week or so, reinforcing my criticism that the Trust is marginalised.
Even so the Trust and their representatives have been whipping up emotions, spouting slogans, etc. Now maybe there are leaks being orchestrated by potential selling shareholders but now is a time for cool heads to prevail, particularly when the real - voting - power of the Trust to affect the outcome of the current situation is so limited.
My advice is to calm down, boys, and maybe go and read a book or something. In the present circumstances I suggest this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Confusin-Confusiones/dp/ |  |
| |  |
| Trust Position Revisited on 09:40 - Nov 7 with 6956 views | monmouth |
The core question remains though Shakes doesn't it? What new capital? ....and then if any, at what price and at what risk to the club? The Trust will surely have made its statement with some knowledge of a potential deal structure (they are as you say a major shareholder), otherwise such a statement would be a touch bizarre? |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 09:53 - Nov 7 with 6931 views | _ |
Shaky,
Nobody expects us to be 6th regularly but we've all seen how "human" the Premier League can be also, throughout the last four seasons. Yes, it's as unforgiving as human just the same but it doesn't take the beyond our wildest dream scenario to reach top ten like we've always imagined.
Most fans are as happy as you can get with our challenges in the big league with first objective always to just survive.
We are also happy with the status quo in general at the club and fear any raising of capital to be a shift from our tried and trusted philosophy that has served us so well.
What investment could really benefit us whilst at the same time retaining our aforementioned status quo and keeping the club very much in reach of the fans, in general? The investment rumoured would see us lose sight of any interaction into what goes on at our club? |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:17 - Nov 7 with 6886 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 09:53 - Nov 7 by _ |
Shaky,
Nobody expects us to be 6th regularly but we've all seen how "human" the Premier League can be also, throughout the last four seasons. Yes, it's as unforgiving as human just the same but it doesn't take the beyond our wildest dream scenario to reach top ten like we've always imagined.
Most fans are as happy as you can get with our challenges in the big league with first objective always to just survive.
We are also happy with the status quo in general at the club and fear any raising of capital to be a shift from our tried and trusted philosophy that has served us so well.
What investment could really benefit us whilst at the same time retaining our aforementioned status quo and keeping the club very much in reach of the fans, in general? The investment rumoured would see us lose sight of any interaction into what goes on at our club? |
As I said, it is objectively impossible to take a view on the specific merits of this situation without any real details.
As far as real information goes, it seems to me all we have to go on is Jenkins' repeated public assertions he is looking at a minority investment versus a chorus of unsubstantiated and anonymous claims it is a full takeover. Now I have seen enough of theses situations to know the dynamics are fluid but there the fact remains there is still nothing substantive to go on.
However, on a general note the key advantage of investment today or more importantly in the future is that it secures the longer term financial position of the club.
Furthermore, in my view NOTRAC the other day made one of the most incisive comments on here recently when he talked about the commercial potential of the US, where it seems to me soccerball may actually be on the verge of taking off.
I saw a stat that said something like 4% of the US population has a Welsh name, amounting to more than 12m people. Every 1 percent of those you can convert to Swansea fans is 120,000 people spending an average of $x per person per year and you have the real potential to transform not only the supporter base but also the ongoing commercial revenue of the club on a sustainable, longterm basis.
With the right US partner, naturally. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:18 - Nov 7 with 6882 views | dobjack2 |
Hysteria or serious concerns. Each to their own.
The question is what exactly is the "new investment" required for. If it is players and contracts then that is the road to serious debt for a club if our size and, as set out in the original post is against everything that we have put in place for years. There is also no guarantee that going down this road keeps a team in the premiership.
If it is for stadium expansion then another risky option. Currently desirable to allow more fans to see the team and enable them to come back for more, but no guarantee that the ground will get filled for every game or if we get relegated. The championship has plenty of ex-premiership clubs.
The lack of information about the reasons for external investment is what has fuelled concerns. Posters who have witnessed previous sales of the club are concerned that shareholders may be trying to portray a deal that may be good for them personally as being good for the club and could lead to unsustainable debt to a multiple millionaire owner who could treat the club as their plaything, to discard if they get bored with it.
The events up the road have kept many people amused, it would not be amusing for it to happen here. Nobody wants a repeat here. |  | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:30 - Nov 7 with 6854 views | Shaky |
Chris, there is another thing I should mention regarding your point that you want the status quo to remain in place.
Alas this can never happen, and the only certainly is that the ownership dynamic must change at some point in time, whether through one or more of the shareholders insisting on selling up, a shareholder dying and leaving their shares to undesirables, etc. The only constant is change!
Therefore it is much better to try to manage that change from a position of strength, rather than leave it to the vagaries of lady luck at some unknown point down the line. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:32 - Nov 7 with 6848 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:17 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
As I said, it is objectively impossible to take a view on the specific merits of this situation without any real details.
As far as real information goes, it seems to me all we have to go on is Jenkins' repeated public assertions he is looking at a minority investment versus a chorus of unsubstantiated and anonymous claims it is a full takeover. Now I have seen enough of theses situations to know the dynamics are fluid but there the fact remains there is still nothing substantive to go on.
However, on a general note the key advantage of investment today or more importantly in the future is that it secures the longer term financial position of the club.
Furthermore, in my view NOTRAC the other day made one of the most incisive comments on here recently when he talked about the commercial potential of the US, where it seems to me soccerball may actually be on the verge of taking off.
I saw a stat that said something like 4% of the US population has a Welsh name, amounting to more than 12m people. Every 1 percent of those you can convert to Swansea fans is 120,000 people spending an average of $x per person per year and you have the real potential to transform not only the supporter base but also the ongoing commercial revenue of the club on a sustainable, longterm basis.
With the right US partner, naturally. |
But who's club would that benefit Shaky? Our club, the one we fought tooth and nail for, scrimped and saved for and hold a position on the board, albeit quite a silent voice...
Or a franchise based in Swansea where we become just bit part players? | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:33 - Nov 7 with 6848 views | JackSomething |
Taking a leaf out of Dav's book, you could call it hysteria or you could call it people remembering this quote: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.
I'd rather have a fanbase that reacts 'hysterically' than one that sticks their collective heads in the sand and their arse in the air at the merest mention of more money for the club. |  |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:38 - Nov 7 with 6834 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:30 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
Chris, there is another thing I should mention regarding your point that you want the status quo to remain in place.
Alas this can never happen, and the only certainly is that the ownership dynamic must change at some point in time, whether through one or more of the shareholders insisting on selling up, a shareholder dying and leaving their shares to undesirables, etc. The only constant is change!
Therefore it is much better to try to manage that change from a position of strength, rather than leave it to the vagaries of lady luck at some unknown point down the line. |
This i completely agree with and you are so, so right.
But can we, in your opinion, keep our club fan owned or partly owned, especially in today's world of greed and skullduggerry? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:38 - Nov 7 with 6832 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:32 - Nov 7 by _ |
But who's club would that benefit Shaky? Our club, the one we fought tooth and nail for, scrimped and saved for and hold a position on the board, albeit quite a silent voice...
Or a franchise based in Swansea where we become just bit part players? |
I'm sorry, but I thought it was widely agreed that events over the past 12-18 months had already shown the notion that Swansea was somehow a fan owned and controlled club to be something of an illusion. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:40 - Nov 7 with 6826 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:38 - Nov 7 by _ |
This i completely agree with and you are so, so right.
But can we, in your opinion, keep our club fan owned or partly owned, especially in today's world of greed and skullduggerry? |
I simply can't answer that, because I have no insights into how intent the other shareholders are on selling their shares.
Have a few things to do now, but will likely be around later. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:41 - Nov 7 with 6823 views | _ |
And Shake, let's just assume for the purpose of, being pessimistic can sometimes offer nice surprise, that the directors are cashing out, because that's pretty much what we're hearing on the street.
Does your op still stand? | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:46 - Nov 7 with 6813 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:41 - Nov 7 by _ |
And Shake, let's just assume for the purpose of, being pessimistic can sometimes offer nice surprise, that the directors are cashing out, because that's pretty much what we're hearing on the street.
Does your op still stand? |
If the other shareholders really are all intent on selling out, I have already provided an outline strategy for how the Trust can secure the best deal possible, in my opinion obviously.
Gotta run. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 12:08 - Nov 7 with 6719 views | NOTRAC |
Thank you Shaky for bringing back a sense of perspective to this issue.
The majority of us would of course like things to stay exactly as they are.Premiership status,even with a mid table position enables us to play against the Arsenals and Man Utds of this world,with the possibility of glory days when we actually beat them.
However the world is a fast moving place at present,and if we don't accept change it will eventually be forced upon us.
Consider this one fact.
We have a two year sponsership worth approx £5-6 m. Man Utd have sponsership in place worth over £600m over ten years.
The opportunity now exists for us to possibly enter the Arsenal, Man Utd league,because the two Investors that are prepared to join us, are from an experience and success viewpoint two of the best that could be chosen to lead us into that lucrative American market.
With the interest now shown in football in America the Premiership structure will change.We need to be one of the front runners and this is our opportunity.
However the big question is at what cost.
Owned by the fans for the fans is unfortunately an ideal that has already almost disappeared.It is obvious now that the main players who invested in Swansea over the past ten years saw the potential in a club that was moving into a new stadium that they did not have to pay for. Obviously the success has been greater than their wildest dreams.
Their attitude to the Trust has been,to my mind,condescending,supportive from a publicity viewpoint, but at no time to allow the Trust to be a major player.
The inability of the Trust to achieve the 25plus% share interest has obviously been as a result of the control exercised by the investors.
The 25% plus control would of course have stopped special resolutions like the increase in share capital etc to take place ie the watering down of share percentages.
I would guess that what we are now going to see is a partial sale of shares to the Americans plus a new share issue.
This will obviously decrease the future power and influence of the Trust.
However how much real power has the Trust had anyway up to now.
They weren't allowed to buy Mel Nurse shares when he returned them to the club.(to my mind he is the only person to come out of this with credit, even though I know he did receive a fair reward for his investment)
The £5 addition to season tickets mentioned by Tom Dick and Harry was discontinued to avoid the Trust becoming too powerful.
So what should the Trust expect and do.
In a way it was set up to ensure that the Petty situation would never happen again.
Through dividends it has accumulated a considerable amount, about £600,000.
Should it now perhaps consider selling some of its shares,like the other investors, so that if ever in the future things turned out depressingly wrong there would be a considerable amount to resurrect the club when needed.
A difficult and critical time. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 12:37 - Nov 7 with 6651 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 12:08 - Nov 7 by NOTRAC |
Thank you Shaky for bringing back a sense of perspective to this issue.
The majority of us would of course like things to stay exactly as they are.Premiership status,even with a mid table position enables us to play against the Arsenals and Man Utds of this world,with the possibility of glory days when we actually beat them.
However the world is a fast moving place at present,and if we don't accept change it will eventually be forced upon us.
Consider this one fact.
We have a two year sponsership worth approx £5-6 m. Man Utd have sponsership in place worth over £600m over ten years.
The opportunity now exists for us to possibly enter the Arsenal, Man Utd league,because the two Investors that are prepared to join us, are from an experience and success viewpoint two of the best that could be chosen to lead us into that lucrative American market.
With the interest now shown in football in America the Premiership structure will change.We need to be one of the front runners and this is our opportunity.
However the big question is at what cost.
Owned by the fans for the fans is unfortunately an ideal that has already almost disappeared.It is obvious now that the main players who invested in Swansea over the past ten years saw the potential in a club that was moving into a new stadium that they did not have to pay for. Obviously the success has been greater than their wildest dreams.
Their attitude to the Trust has been,to my mind,condescending,supportive from a publicity viewpoint, but at no time to allow the Trust to be a major player.
The inability of the Trust to achieve the 25plus% share interest has obviously been as a result of the control exercised by the investors.
The 25% plus control would of course have stopped special resolutions like the increase in share capital etc to take place ie the watering down of share percentages.
I would guess that what we are now going to see is a partial sale of shares to the Americans plus a new share issue.
This will obviously decrease the future power and influence of the Trust.
However how much real power has the Trust had anyway up to now.
They weren't allowed to buy Mel Nurse shares when he returned them to the club.(to my mind he is the only person to come out of this with credit, even though I know he did receive a fair reward for his investment)
The £5 addition to season tickets mentioned by Tom Dick and Harry was discontinued to avoid the Trust becoming too powerful.
So what should the Trust expect and do.
In a way it was set up to ensure that the Petty situation would never happen again.
Through dividends it has accumulated a considerable amount, about £600,000.
Should it now perhaps consider selling some of its shares,like the other investors, so that if ever in the future things turned out depressingly wrong there would be a considerable amount to resurrect the club when needed.
A difficult and critical time. |
Ok without going through all that individually by each point made....
I wouldn't compare us now or in the future to what Man U or Arsenal are doing or receiving. What's happened at the other Yank owned clubs? Sunderland and Villa are two that spring to mind?!
Also, how much will EPL really catch on out there? Isn't it just as likely that the new found American interest in "soccer" would enhance their own leagues and teams and the EPL just be used as a vehicle to promote how big their leagues and teams could get?
I mean, there was a mini explosion over here with the NFL back in the day, most kids had a passing interest in it and some perhaps followed a team. I know this comparison doesn't exactly match up as the UK, in general, pretty much passed over that fad and pretty quickly. If football does stick out there it would surely mean all these franchises springing up would be the real beneficiaries down the line. I don't see the US market similar to Asian markets in this respect, I would fancy them to want to support their own and passionately at that.
Onto the Trust...
I feel you are right and I have been banging on about this for literally years. In fact I was reading emails from Richard Lilicrap and Leigh Dineen dating back 10 years or so. Leigh was a Supporters Trust Director at the time but it was clear even back then that when corresponding to my concerns over ticket prices, season tickets, other issues at the club, he was very much a part of the club itself.
Basically I got nowhere with him so it was no surprise he was shoe-horned into the Directors Board itself at SCFC in the following months.
I can genuinely see the merit of having a professional working relationship with the club and everything being as amicable as possible - but, this just doesn't get results and by simple human nature afterwards, the Trust become too "pally" with the directors themselves - often having mutual beneficial interests.
There are more than a few this could apply to and some are good friends of mine.
To me, this is wrong and we should be acting more like a Bob Crowe union in achieving a voice for the people on important matters that affect us supporters.
With the lack of a real voice the SCFC directors have been allowed to distance themselves very carefully away from the supporters at large and are now in a position where they will distance themselves permanently away from the club and at great personal wealth and gain.
To what extent this could have been avoided is questionable - probably very limited indeed, but we, as a Supporters Trust and with the second largest shareholding should have been putting our foot down years ago. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 12:49 - Nov 7 with 6617 views | ScoobyWho |
Why was Darran, T2C and my post removed from this topic ? |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 12:50 - Nov 7 with 6609 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:17 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
As I said, it is objectively impossible to take a view on the specific merits of this situation without any real details.
As far as real information goes, it seems to me all we have to go on is Jenkins' repeated public assertions he is looking at a minority investment versus a chorus of unsubstantiated and anonymous claims it is a full takeover. Now I have seen enough of theses situations to know the dynamics are fluid but there the fact remains there is still nothing substantive to go on.
However, on a general note the key advantage of investment today or more importantly in the future is that it secures the longer term financial position of the club.
Furthermore, in my view NOTRAC the other day made one of the most incisive comments on here recently when he talked about the commercial potential of the US, where it seems to me soccerball may actually be on the verge of taking off.
I saw a stat that said something like 4% of the US population has a Welsh name, amounting to more than 12m people. Every 1 percent of those you can convert to Swansea fans is 120,000 people spending an average of $x per person per year and you have the real potential to transform not only the supporter base but also the ongoing commercial revenue of the club on a sustainable, longterm basis.
With the right US partner, naturally. |
A number of people have as you say commented on the commercial potential of the US market and whether US investors could help us exploit it. There is little doubt that football is becoming more popular over there, and there will be huge opportunities I'm sure.
One small point though, is that quoting a stat showing the number of people with a Welsh name in the US is not a particularly sound reason for assuming that they are a potential market for us to exploit.
I suggest that you look further into the reason why so many Americans have a Welsh surname and whether that would make it likely that they have any ties to Wales. A starting point to understand why it's the case would be to look at the ethnicity of US citizens with a Welsh name !
And on a wider note - 'investment' doesn't in itself secure the longer term financial position of anyone or anything other than the individual who has received the money. We have no details whatsoever of any amounts that may or may not be received by the club, just some information on amounts (possibly speculative, possibly based on reality) that will be received by certain shareholders. | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 12:55 - Nov 7 with 6589 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 12:49 - Nov 7 by ScoobyWho |
Why was Darran, T2C and my post removed from this topic ? |
Probably and hopefully because Darran tried ONCE AGAIN to railroad good, healthy debate and has been banned. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:01 - Nov 7 with 6574 views | Dewi1jack |
This quote from Shaky
"I saw a stat that said something like 4% of the US population has a Welsh name, amounting to more than 12m people. Every 1 percent of those you can convert to Swansea fans is 120,000 people spending an average of $x per person per year and you have the real potential to transform not only the supporter base but also the ongoing commercial revenue of the club on a sustainable, longterm basis.
With the right US partner, naturally"
If you work out that if you can sell the 1% of converts a shirt, that equates to over £7.5 million extra income, providing the commercial dept. at the club, can get the shirts ordered and delivered (miracles may happen!!)
A lot of our cousins over the pond are proud of their heritage- some actually know where Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland are.
If we could manage to get 10% of the approximate population that has Welsh heritage and sell them 1 shirt a season, over £75.5 million extra income.
Population of the US is around 390 million, off their last survey
Possible extra income, for really doing nothing, becomes frightening for a small club like us
HJ was banging on about the 39th game being worth about £5 million. The extra advertising of our club, if we played it in the US, could be worth far more.
We could be an untapped mine for the right people with the right connections and our shareholders that are selling, could be selling their shares far below what the future price will be.
Or, should our PL bubble burst and we're back to travelling to Rotherham, Huddersfield or worse still, an early start to Norwich, Ipswich or Carlisle, then the sellers will have done well. Pays your money, you takes your chance.
Either way, I have faith in the Trust getting the right advice, to ensure the club survives for our grand/ great grand kids.
And the more members the Trust has, the more revenue it raises, so becoming stronger.
We really do need to get our commercial department working harder to raise the income levels. |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:02 - Nov 7 with 6570 views | NeathJack |
"if you have to make your views known to fellow shareholders via what is in effect an open letter it just shows that ordinary channels of communication have completely broken down"
A rather large and almost certainly incorrect assumption there I would imagine. |  | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:06 - Nov 7 with 6564 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:46 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
If the other shareholders really are all intent on selling out, I have already provided an outline strategy for how the Trust can secure the best deal possible, in my opinion obviously.
Gotta run. |
no you didn't actually!
That was the very point you didn't address. You addressed the point of further investment into the club being non dilutive for existing shareholders but you specifically didn't address the point that it's the current investors selling rather than actual investment being brought into the club that is being mooted. A point which makes all the difference ! | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:11 - Nov 7 with 6551 views | Clinton |
The OP wrote the following
" Furthermore, if you glance at the bottom 6 in the championship you will see Wigan, Fulham, and Bolton, all clubs that have been considered well established in the prem within the last 4 or 5 years, illustrating how rapidly fortunes can reverse"
Although they are good examples of wavering fortunes, my contention is that these clubs (and Birmingham who are also down there) are good reasons NOT to live beyond our means and take on investment and debt from other parties.
1) Fulham. Shahid Khan the newish owner seems to have a similar background to our rumoured investors. Look what a mess they are in. Id suggest investors like that are not beneficial.
2) Bolton. Bolton have a long and fine history and are a bigger club than ourselves despite their current league position. They are weighed down by a rumoured £150 million - odd of debt. This debt is now holding back this fine club as their long term backer seems to want out.
3) Wigan. Different story Whelans money got this tiny club where they were and the stability he affords will get them back.
4) Birmingham. Spent money like water, still had Zigic on the books at 70K a week recently. they Overinvested in the Premier league in an unsustainable manner. |  |
| If you can fill the unforgiving minute.
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son! |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:24 - Nov 7 with 6525 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:02 - Nov 7 by NeathJack |
"if you have to make your views known to fellow shareholders via what is in effect an open letter it just shows that ordinary channels of communication have completely broken down"
A rather large and almost certainly incorrect assumption there I would imagine. |
I wouldn't be too sure of that, Paul. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:30 - Nov 7 with 6513 views | dobjack2 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 10:17 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
As I said, it is objectively impossible to take a view on the specific merits of this situation without any real details.
As far as real information goes, it seems to me all we have to go on is Jenkins' repeated public assertions he is looking at a minority investment versus a chorus of unsubstantiated and anonymous claims it is a full takeover. Now I have seen enough of theses situations to know the dynamics are fluid but there the fact remains there is still nothing substantive to go on.
However, on a general note the key advantage of investment today or more importantly in the future is that it secures the longer term financial position of the club.
Furthermore, in my view NOTRAC the other day made one of the most incisive comments on here recently when he talked about the commercial potential of the US, where it seems to me soccerball may actually be on the verge of taking off.
I saw a stat that said something like 4% of the US population has a Welsh name, amounting to more than 12m people. Every 1 percent of those you can convert to Swansea fans is 120,000 people spending an average of $x per person per year and you have the real potential to transform not only the supporter base but also the ongoing commercial revenue of the club on a sustainable, longterm basis.
With the right US partner, naturally. |
Sorry but the welsh name bit has a ring of VT suggesting that Cardiff would make a killing in the Asian markets by wearing red shirts. | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:34 - Nov 7 with 6503 views | monmouth |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:30 - Nov 7 by dobjack2 |
Sorry but the welsh name bit has a ring of VT suggesting that Cardiff would make a killing in the Asian markets by wearing red shirts. |
Just what I was thinking about the whole 'big in america' argument. Oh how we laughed at the pathetic fools as they spread their buttocks wide for their 'Billionaire' 'Investor'.
Are we going to forget all that now then? T2C is right, look at Villa and Sunderland before making such claims. Lerner would get shot tomorrow if he could get his money out. There is no 'big in america' waiting around the corner. That'll just be another false justification. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:38 - Nov 7 with 6497 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:24 - Nov 7 by _ |
I wouldn't be too sure of that, Paul. |
Whereas I think there is a very real possibility (as has been mentioned on here over and over again) that the Trust and the other shareholders don't have as happy a relationship as we may wish, and also as they have in the past (hence the spinning of certain anti Trust propaganda), it's certainly the case that the trust didn't write an open letter to inform the other shareholders what their position was because of a break down in communication. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
