| 100,000 x 1000 11:54 - Aug 10 with 4857 views | westwalesed |
Would the Americans sell up if fans had a decent offer to make?
I'm a total dreamer.
But 100,000 true football people, from around the world, stumping up £1000 each gives them the £100,000,000 they paid. |  |
| |  |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 11:55 - Aug 10 with 3764 views | ItchySphincter |
Righto. I'll do a sponsored bar crawl. |  |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 11:58 - Aug 10 with 3735 views | Captain_Sham |
Errrrrr.... |  |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 11:59 - Aug 10 with 3729 views | EasternJack |
Wait 3 years and you can knock off a zero from that price.
At that point, it may be worth doing something. |  |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:00 - Aug 10 with 3709 views | trinityann |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 11:59 - Aug 10 by EasternJack |
Wait 3 years and you can knock off a zero from that price.
At that point, it may be worth doing something. |
Your lucky if the club is worth £20 million these days, we don't own the ground and sold all our assets. [Post edited 10 Aug 2018 12:01]
| | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:01 - Aug 10 with 3706 views | Swans_16 |
I was actually thinking of this a few months back ...
Most would be happy to do that given we pay half of that a year as it is for season tickets !! Plus ... There's a lot more out there that would contribute more for a fan buyout - Starting with the Trust's shares it wouldn't even take that much. | | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:03 - Aug 10 with 3677 views | Jonathans_coat |
Quick point of order.
The hedge fund paid around £75m for a 68% shareholding in SCFC (along with 79.9% of the voting rights).
The entire club was valued at around £110m. (For comparison Arsenal FC was valued at £1.8 Billion last week!)
The club is not worth £110m now (for a start we just sold £47m in assets/players). Current value of the club is probably around £30m to £40m, and the yanks shares therefore £20m - £30m.
No one in there right mind would pay anywhere near £100m for the club at this time! |  | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:10 - Aug 10 with 3632 views | hobo |
The trust could have done this, but for some reason they advised their members NOT to vote for legal action. How must they be feeling right now?  |  | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:10 - Aug 10 with 3627 views | Shaky |
The club is currently at best worthless, and the shares are quite likely negative in value excluding the Trust's stake. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:12 - Aug 10 with 3613 views | BLAZE |
You wouldn’t find 100,000 fans willing to spend the time it takes to sign a petition, let alone part with any money |  | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:14 - Aug 10 with 3578 views | E20Jack |
That should have been the plan from day 1.
Certainly from day 1 of the articles changing as I have been putting forward for quite some time.
The right play was always to cash in the shares at the realistic high point and then wait. Once we were able to we should have then acquired a controlling stake.
Looks like that day may come sooner than many realised yet we will have nothing to be able to do it.
The lack of foresight shown by our own Teust was terrifying at times. Now the penny has dropped will it be too late? Probably. |  |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:22 - Aug 10 with 3513 views | Badlands |
Jeeez.
Look what happened when fans were expected to pay a small fee for ticket handling!!!!!
Jenkins and Mordan spent over two years trying to bring in investor and this consortium was the only one willing to gamble.
Since Laudrup left our recruitment has been at very best patchy (last season desperate) but we do have decent players, we do have an academy to draw on, we do have loans to come in, we do have millions of ££ to come in from loaned players once they are sold.
II accept I am one of the few, but I still think the new group is doing a decent job.
We kew we'd lose the players who have left.
Some of us realised we would never get the kind of money for them we paid or suggested they were worth.
If Potter has a budget and a cap on buying and paying players it is right we stick to it ... Brentford tried to screw us and we stood up to them. Let's face it how many fans had heard of Ryan Woods before he became a fan forum sensation? |  |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:25 - Aug 10 with 3492 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:10 - Aug 10 by Shaky |
The club is currently at best worthless, and the shares are quite likely negative in value excluding the Trust's stake. |
I doubt that very much, the players that we still have plus about £6M a year TV sponsorship should mean that the club has a value of around £10M.
What did the last small Championship club sell for?
After this transfer window fiasco next year when we are a league 1 side we will be worth even less.
The Yanks are never going to get a steady income from the club now, they have lost out big time. | | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:41 - Aug 10 with 3421 views | awayjack |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:03 - Aug 10 by Jonathans_coat |
Quick point of order.
The hedge fund paid around £75m for a 68% shareholding in SCFC (along with 79.9% of the voting rights).
The entire club was valued at around £110m. (For comparison Arsenal FC was valued at £1.8 Billion last week!)
The club is not worth £110m now (for a start we just sold £47m in assets/players). Current value of the club is probably around £30m to £40m, and the yanks shares therefore £20m - £30m.
No one in there right mind would pay anywhere near £100m for the club at this time! |
The value has plummeted since the Yanks paid money to Judas and Co. Park the emotion and probably fallen to less than £20m.
Revenues. Then: £120m+ with future increases in TV monies and potential to vastly improve commercial income. Now: As parachute payments reduce revenues likely to fall by 80% or more.
Profit. Then: Modest profits as costs high but with a clear plan reduce costs by £30m or so (See Burnley etc) so make large future profits. Now: Costs spiralled even higher and despite losing rid all high earning players, costs still at £60m+. Not sustainable with big losses as parachutes stop.
Assets. Then: Playing squad with value of £120m+. Now: Sold any of value, many at discount. Maybe £20m for what's left.
Brand / Prospects. Then: Huge brand equity seen as model football club with playing style that attracted players and delighted fans. Now: Carnage. Laughing stock of football, basket case of Board / Owners, litigation and very disgruntled fans. Most quality players gone and can't compete. |  | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:48 - Aug 10 with 3378 views | costalotta |
I thought they spent 65m on buying shares from the sell outs? And, at the same killed the trusts voting rights and ultimately the fans shareholding. |  | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:48 - Aug 10 with 3373 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:22 - Aug 10 by Badlands |
Jeeez.
Look what happened when fans were expected to pay a small fee for ticket handling!!!!!
Jenkins and Mordan spent over two years trying to bring in investor and this consortium was the only one willing to gamble.
Since Laudrup left our recruitment has been at very best patchy (last season desperate) but we do have decent players, we do have an academy to draw on, we do have loans to come in, we do have millions of ££ to come in from loaned players once they are sold.
II accept I am one of the few, but I still think the new group is doing a decent job.
We kew we'd lose the players who have left.
Some of us realised we would never get the kind of money for them we paid or suggested they were worth.
If Potter has a budget and a cap on buying and paying players it is right we stick to it ... Brentford tried to screw us and we stood up to them. Let's face it how many fans had heard of Ryan Woods before he became a fan forum sensation? |
"Jenkins and Mordan spent over two years trying to bring in investor and this consortium was the only one willing to gamble."
Sorry, that is not true on 2 counts, first of all they have "Invested" nothing in the club, all they did was pay off a load of greedy buggers.
Second there were Chinese interested in the club and who nows who else, they are only the ones we heard about. | | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 13:11 - Aug 10 with 3304 views | nantywatcher |
There is nothing for people to mock this principle. Thirty yeras ago I did exactly this - got a group of people with a passion for a league club and (it took me 12 months but it rescued the club from going out of business.) Scaled probably the equivelent of £25 mill in today's terms.
£100 mill is out of the question. The Americans face a big loss, but the longer they hide the worse the situation is going to get for them. I'm guessing that MIGHT take 50-60% of their money back and move on. At that level there might be a positive way of looking at your post? | | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 13:19 - Aug 10 with 3274 views | westwalesed |
I was actually debating whether to post it for risk of looking silly.
But, we want our club back.
And the only way to do it is buy it. | |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 13:39 - Aug 10 with 3224 views | Badlands |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 12:48 - Aug 10 by A_Fans_Dad |
"Jenkins and Mordan spent over two years trying to bring in investor and this consortium was the only one willing to gamble."
Sorry, that is not true on 2 counts, first of all they have "Invested" nothing in the club, all they did was pay off a load of greedy buggers.
Second there were Chinese interested in the club and who nows who else, they are only the ones we heard about. |
'tried to bring in investors' is what they did. In the end this group bought control. Their investment, as was clear from the off, was initially though expertise to redevelop the cub. Things haven't gone as we wanted (or them I should think) but there is no doubt we are more professional and still solvent.
The Chinese 'interest' was twofold 'SinoFortone' which had also reported to have tried to buy Liverpool. They were also promising £10 billion investment in Scotland (also Holyhead and Port Talbot) five years on (from the UK development) he has bought ... a single pub, The Plough in the Chilterns. They are reported to have made enquiries into buying Swansea but there was rival Chinese interest from Peter Zhang ... founder and managing director of ... SinoForte. Our directors, at the time saw right through these (probably should have formally reported them).
It appears the 'group', set up in 2016, used publicity from these speculations and 'projects' that would never get off the ground to generate success in smaller projects elsewhere.
There may have been other. But even the SinoForte interest only came to light following an investigation into the Zhang offer.
There will always e conspiracies but I'm convinced no other offers (of a serious nature) were made.
Entrepreneurs will invest if the see a profit which is usually where there are high share profits in the future or where there is land to be developed and new stadia to build. We had neither. Nor did we have a rich council / country to back projects as happened in Washington. | |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 14:40 - Aug 10 with 3144 views | omarjack |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 13:39 - Aug 10 by Badlands |
'tried to bring in investors' is what they did. In the end this group bought control. Their investment, as was clear from the off, was initially though expertise to redevelop the cub. Things haven't gone as we wanted (or them I should think) but there is no doubt we are more professional and still solvent.
The Chinese 'interest' was twofold 'SinoFortone' which had also reported to have tried to buy Liverpool. They were also promising £10 billion investment in Scotland (also Holyhead and Port Talbot) five years on (from the UK development) he has bought ... a single pub, The Plough in the Chilterns. They are reported to have made enquiries into buying Swansea but there was rival Chinese interest from Peter Zhang ... founder and managing director of ... SinoForte. Our directors, at the time saw right through these (probably should have formally reported them).
It appears the 'group', set up in 2016, used publicity from these speculations and 'projects' that would never get off the ground to generate success in smaller projects elsewhere.
There may have been other. But even the SinoForte interest only came to light following an investigation into the Zhang offer.
There will always e conspiracies but I'm convinced no other offers (of a serious nature) were made.
Entrepreneurs will invest if the see a profit which is usually where there are high share profits in the future or where there is land to be developed and new stadia to build. We had neither. Nor did we have a rich council / country to back projects as happened in Washington. |
Bruh..
 |  |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 14:44 - Aug 10 with 3128 views | Phil_S |
Should probably throw out the fact early in the discussion the Americans did not pay £100m for the club.
Nowhere near it |  | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 14:56 - Aug 10 with 3088 views | westwalesed |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 14:44 - Aug 10 by Phil_S |
Should probably throw out the fact early in the discussion the Americans did not pay £100m for the club.
Nowhere near it |
Sorry, yes should have been more clear - the club was valued at around 110 Million as a result of the takeover wasn't it?
In which case, how much money do they need to be told, look, here is what you put in, it hasn't worked out, please go away? | |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 14:57 - Aug 10 with 3083 views | longlostjack |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 13:39 - Aug 10 by Badlands |
'tried to bring in investors' is what they did. In the end this group bought control. Their investment, as was clear from the off, was initially though expertise to redevelop the cub. Things haven't gone as we wanted (or them I should think) but there is no doubt we are more professional and still solvent.
The Chinese 'interest' was twofold 'SinoFortone' which had also reported to have tried to buy Liverpool. They were also promising £10 billion investment in Scotland (also Holyhead and Port Talbot) five years on (from the UK development) he has bought ... a single pub, The Plough in the Chilterns. They are reported to have made enquiries into buying Swansea but there was rival Chinese interest from Peter Zhang ... founder and managing director of ... SinoForte. Our directors, at the time saw right through these (probably should have formally reported them).
It appears the 'group', set up in 2016, used publicity from these speculations and 'projects' that would never get off the ground to generate success in smaller projects elsewhere.
There may have been other. But even the SinoForte interest only came to light following an investigation into the Zhang offer.
There will always e conspiracies but I'm convinced no other offers (of a serious nature) were made.
Entrepreneurs will invest if the see a profit which is usually where there are high share profits in the future or where there is land to be developed and new stadia to build. We had neither. Nor did we have a rich council / country to back projects as happened in Washington. |
“There is no doubt we are more professional”. At that point I was sorely tempted to stop reading any further. |  |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 15:03 - Aug 10 with 3054 views | Phil_S |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 14:56 - Aug 10 by westwalesed |
Sorry, yes should have been more clear - the club was valued at around 110 Million as a result of the takeover wasn't it?
In which case, how much money do they need to be told, look, here is what you put in, it hasn't worked out, please go away? |
Depends what you believe
I am not sure it was actually ever that high but its another one of those things coated in mystery | | | |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 15:15 - Aug 10 with 3024 views | byron |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 11:59 - Aug 10 by EasternJack |
Wait 3 years and you can knock off a zero from that price.
At that point, it may be worth doing something. |
That’s Jenkins master plan isn’t it? Buy back for 10 million in league 2 and start again. Wonder what roberto is up to?😂 |  |
| |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 15:29 - Aug 10 with 2978 views | Jonathans_coat |
| 100,000 x 1000 on 15:03 - Aug 10 by Phil_S |
Depends what you believe
I am not sure it was actually ever that high but its another one of those things coated in mystery |
Quick query Phil. Just thinking out loud so to speak.
If the Trust take legal action against Sellers and/or buyers and win on the basis of unfair prejudice. Assuming the resolution decided by the courts would be a forced purchase of the trusts shares at the previous market value (circa £20m for arguements sake). What guarantees/protections would be given that this debt would not be paid using club funds, or offset by a fire sale the like of which we have just seen?
My guess would be that there is no foolproof way to prevent this, or enforce restrictions on from where thier debt is recouped. After all well they still own the club (79.9% voting rights!) | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.