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.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:11 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
No - they'll have sold it to become multi millionaires.
They will of course care about the future of the club, but not more than their financial stake.
If someone said to you - you can choose, Swansea City Football Club in fans ownership or £12m in your pocket and Swansea City FC in the ownership of people that may or may not do what's best for the club over the years, you'd take your chances wouldn't you? It's not like the club will go away completely in however bad a scenario you can imagine. The ONLY people that will make an objective choice are the Trust as they are the only party who will not personally benefit.
Yes, clearly they'd have personally benefited from it - that's not in dispute.
Football is littered with clubs getting absolutely destroyed due to poor owners and I think it's doing the current shareholders (certainly the likes of HJ, MM) a disservice by saying that they will "take their chances" because despite the current trend to criticise them, they have probably all spent and sacrificed a lot more on the club than we will ever realise.
I was actually agreeing with you with regards to the PR/Pressure that the trust needs to put on. These are ill thought out examples I appreciate but if they could gift the trust a percentage of shares to take them to 25%, for instance (again, don't know if it's even do-able), or perhaps transfer the training facilities to them, insert some sort of covenant about the stadium/training grounds so that we can never be "locked out" of them, then at least they will have left us with some protection.
Maybe the campaign needs to be something around leaving us a legacy/honourable exit/safeguarding our future... perhaps with a catchy slogan or something.
Ultimately, the fans trying to run any investors out of town won't work but what we can do, as you say, is to ensure that the current lot do absolutely everything they can to protect the future of the club, even if it does mean that they don't get as much as they may otherwise have done.
1
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:26 - Apr 11 with 1284 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:12 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
Wasn't that what I said?
There will be communications and forums planned to get a lot of the information out there regarding what the Trust can do, next steps etc.
Broadly agree with the rest of your post. And yes, given the previous interest it was always, to me at least, a matter of not If but When. The haste of this weekend's press releases has caught everyone by surprise though. You do have to wonder about the timing and rationale of all that.
The only element of this I find surprising is the aggressive timing and nature of the announcement.
Unfortunately it suggests that relations between the Trust and other owners have utterly disintegrated.
I'm afraid I don't believe that others were not aware, whatever is said now. They may not have been aware of the detail or extent of agreement, but I simply don't believe that MM was unaware of what HJ / LD / whoever was doing.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:31 - Apr 11 with 1275 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:02 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
I completely agree with you.
So the issue is actually the new shareholders agreement and what protections it gives the club into perpetuity rather than percentages of trust shares etc.
That's the point I was trying to make (badly possibly). A lot of shouting is about things like 'must get to 25%', 'must stop it happening' etc etc etc. the shouting should be 'what are the investment plans', 'how will investment into the club be structured' etc etc etc. and the ONLY weapon is PR to pressurise for as tight an agreement as possible. Forget the STiD nonsense - but public perception is a powerful factor in getting the existing owners to craft an agreement with protections in place.
If we see it as a 'given' that the shareholders will eventually succumb to an offer, do you think it would be a good idea if the Trust Board had a set of guidelines defining the sort of deals it feels are desirable from a financial point of view. At the extremes: an Abramovich or Mansour type of thing would be impossible to turn down whereas a Glazer type deal would be totally unacceptable. The guidelines would have to fill in what goes in the middle. It will cut out an awful lot of bickering. The trust has made a good start with 'Where do we go from here' I guess any deal should be measured against that document in the first instance. Ok it doesn't stop the existing shareholders doing a deal outside of that framework, but it would let prospective buyers and investors know what to expect from the Trust.
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!
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:36 - Apr 11 with 1257 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:26 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
The only element of this I find surprising is the aggressive timing and nature of the announcement.
Unfortunately it suggests that relations between the Trust and other owners have utterly disintegrated.
I'm afraid I don't believe that others were not aware, whatever is said now. They may not have been aware of the detail or extent of agreement, but I simply don't believe that MM was unaware of what HJ / LD / whoever was doing.
I think you need to separate being aware of general discussions and a fait accompli. On the face of it, this does seem to have even caught unawares one or two of the other shareholders. However, being a cynical sod, all I can say for certain is that the Trust were absolutely kept out of it until 2 weeks ago. Which, in itself, is pretty disappointing to say the least.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:25 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
Yes, clearly they'd have personally benefited from it - that's not in dispute.
Football is littered with clubs getting absolutely destroyed due to poor owners and I think it's doing the current shareholders (certainly the likes of HJ, MM) a disservice by saying that they will "take their chances" because despite the current trend to criticise them, they have probably all spent and sacrificed a lot more on the club than we will ever realise.
I was actually agreeing with you with regards to the PR/Pressure that the trust needs to put on. These are ill thought out examples I appreciate but if they could gift the trust a percentage of shares to take them to 25%, for instance (again, don't know if it's even do-able), or perhaps transfer the training facilities to them, insert some sort of covenant about the stadium/training grounds so that we can never be "locked out" of them, then at least they will have left us with some protection.
Maybe the campaign needs to be something around leaving us a legacy/honourable exit/safeguarding our future... perhaps with a catchy slogan or something.
Ultimately, the fans trying to run any investors out of town won't work but what we can do, as you say, is to ensure that the current lot do absolutely everything they can to protect the future of the club, even if it does mean that they don't get as much as they may otherwise have done.
They won't maximise their value if they allow the Trust above 25%.
And the way this has been handled suggests that they have little interest in helping the Trust whatever sacrifices they have made.
PR is the Trusts friend. The only positive outcome will be as much written into a new shareholders agreement as possible to protect the club going forward. Thats the only game in town for the Trust at this point unless they can find another purchaser who suits us better.
The stadium by the way already has covenants that guarantee both the Swans and Ospreys a further 40 years of use so they actually can't do anything like turn it into a shopping centre (they wouldn't anyway as it's in Swansea and therefore there's nothing that could be done that would generate more income than have a premier league football team occupying it).
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:40 - Apr 11 with 1238 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:26 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
The only element of this I find surprising is the aggressive timing and nature of the announcement.
Unfortunately it suggests that relations between the Trust and other owners have utterly disintegrated.
I'm afraid I don't believe that others were not aware, whatever is said now. They may not have been aware of the detail or extent of agreement, but I simply don't believe that MM was unaware of what HJ / LD / whoever was doing.
Distasteful, but better now than at the beginning of next season. Ultimately though the trust will have to continue to act professionally and treat any offer on its merits and treat other shareholders with professionalism and respect. I'd also like to thank the Trust Board for their work, and encourage them to continue to act for us, the supporters, with renewed energy. I wonder if a few of them woke up on Sunday morning, or this morning with jobs to go to and thought: "Oh no not again". Some of them suffer insults and snide comments along the way as well. Ladies and gents, please keep up the good work.
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!
1
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:40 - Apr 11 with 1237 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:25 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
Yes, clearly they'd have personally benefited from it - that's not in dispute.
Football is littered with clubs getting absolutely destroyed due to poor owners and I think it's doing the current shareholders (certainly the likes of HJ, MM) a disservice by saying that they will "take their chances" because despite the current trend to criticise them, they have probably all spent and sacrificed a lot more on the club than we will ever realise.
I was actually agreeing with you with regards to the PR/Pressure that the trust needs to put on. These are ill thought out examples I appreciate but if they could gift the trust a percentage of shares to take them to 25%, for instance (again, don't know if it's even do-able), or perhaps transfer the training facilities to them, insert some sort of covenant about the stadium/training grounds so that we can never be "locked out" of them, then at least they will have left us with some protection.
Maybe the campaign needs to be something around leaving us a legacy/honourable exit/safeguarding our future... perhaps with a catchy slogan or something.
Ultimately, the fans trying to run any investors out of town won't work but what we can do, as you say, is to ensure that the current lot do absolutely everything they can to protect the future of the club, even if it does mean that they don't get as much as they may otherwise have done.
The problem here is twofold. One, who will sell part of their stake for a cut price. Secondly, given that the Trust getting to 25% may in fact scupper the entire deal, who would be prepared to take that step.
As Lisa alluded to earlier, the 25% is a target but it's the reason for the 25% that is key. Those protections could be enshrined in a SHA without the Trust increasing their stake. Whether the Americans would be prepared to do that is another question. Given that there's only been one short meeting between the parties it's far too early to know.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:36 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
I think you need to separate being aware of general discussions and a fait accompli. On the face of it, this does seem to have even caught unawares one or two of the other shareholders. However, being a cynical sod, all I can say for certain is that the Trust were absolutely kept out of it until 2 weeks ago. Which, in itself, is pretty disappointing to say the least.
Either way, it's a complete mess.
For clarity - I completely believe that the Trust were not informed. For clarity, I completely don't believe that the same was the case for others.
I imagine that the others were so p****d off over the last time round that they decided to keep the Trust out of it and aim to win a PR battle before it started. At least everyone now knows where they stand - there is no longer a collaborative board in place.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:40 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
The problem here is twofold. One, who will sell part of their stake for a cut price. Secondly, given that the Trust getting to 25% may in fact scupper the entire deal, who would be prepared to take that step.
As Lisa alluded to earlier, the 25% is a target but it's the reason for the 25% that is key. Those protections could be enshrined in a SHA without the Trust increasing their stake. Whether the Americans would be prepared to do that is another question. Given that there's only been one short meeting between the parties it's far too early to know.
It would be a good indication of the new investors' intentions. If they really have the club's best interests at heart, then why would they worry about the Trust owning 25% of the shares?
1
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:48 - Apr 11 with 1196 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:44 - Apr 11 by somersetsimon
It would be a good indication of the new investors' intentions. If they really have the club's best interests at heart, then why would they worry about the Trust owning 25% of the shares?
the 25% isn't going to happen at the moment for the reasons Uxbridge gives. It's just a distraction at the moment, I think.
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!
1
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:51 - Apr 11 with 1189 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:41 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
For clarity - I completely believe that the Trust were not informed. For clarity, I completely don't believe that the same was the case for others.
I imagine that the others were so p****d off over the last time round that they decided to keep the Trust out of it and aim to win a PR battle before it started. At least everyone now knows where they stand - there is no longer a collaborative board in place.
As i said - it's sad.
Personally, I'd tend to agree. And it is this deception that is one of the big red flags for me at this time. Not exactly the best of starting points.
I don't doubt Saturday was an attempt to shut out the debate before it had even began, and shame on Wathan for merely reprinting whatever he was told. However I think any PR battle is far from won. The comments on here, the social media Q&A's yesterday etc told me that.
The one thing we should all bear in mind here is that, just possibly, these guys could actually be good for the club. As a Trust, we can't rule that out and have to be open minded on this.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:44 - Apr 11 by somersetsimon
It would be a good indication of the new investors' intentions. If they really have the club's best interests at heart, then why would they worry about the Trust owning 25% of the shares?
It would be an excellent gesture and address many concerns at a stroke. There are valid reasons why they may not want to do that though.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:41 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
For clarity - I completely believe that the Trust were not informed. For clarity, I completely don't believe that the same was the case for others.
I imagine that the others were so p****d off over the last time round that they decided to keep the Trust out of it and aim to win a PR battle before it started. At least everyone now knows where they stand - there is no longer a collaborative board in place.
As i said - it's sad.
Exactly the way that I see it too. Keep the pesky trust out of it to stop them jeopardising it again.
The timing was all wrong last time too. Wasn't it the same weekend that we beat Arsenal? Makes it harder to argue that we needed the "extra investment"
The timing now is impeccable - despite our recent run we are bruised and battered from a hard season, most fans acknowledge the need for a number of new signings this summer and no expansion still. You can see why it's being received more positively now
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:57 - Apr 11 with 1178 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:36 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
They won't maximise their value if they allow the Trust above 25%.
And the way this has been handled suggests that they have little interest in helping the Trust whatever sacrifices they have made.
PR is the Trusts friend. The only positive outcome will be as much written into a new shareholders agreement as possible to protect the club going forward. Thats the only game in town for the Trust at this point unless they can find another purchaser who suits us better.
The stadium by the way already has covenants that guarantee both the Swans and Ospreys a further 40 years of use so they actually can't do anything like turn it into a shopping centre (they wouldn't anyway as it's in Swansea and therefore there's nothing that could be done that would generate more income than have a premier league football team occupying it).
Why does it become less valuable if the Trust have 25%? I don't understand the legalities behind it so what difference is there between the Trust having 25 and the Americans 75 and the trust having 21, MM and HJ having 2 each and the Americans having 75? Is it just the ability to dilute the shares?
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:58 - Apr 11 with 1170 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:57 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
Why does it become less valuable if the Trust have 25%? I don't understand the legalities behind it so what difference is there between the Trust having 25 and the Americans 75 and the trust having 21, MM and HJ having 2 each and the Americans having 75? Is it just the ability to dilute the shares?
An asset you have full control over is always going to be worth more than one you have less than total control over.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:51 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
Personally, I'd tend to agree. And it is this deception that is one of the big red flags for me at this time. Not exactly the best of starting points.
I don't doubt Saturday was an attempt to shut out the debate before it had even began, and shame on Wathan for merely reprinting whatever he was told. However I think any PR battle is far from won. The comments on here, the social media Q&A's yesterday etc told me that.
The one thing we should all bear in mind here is that, just possibly, these guys could actually be good for the club. As a Trust, we can't rule that out and have to be open minded on this.
I agree with you.
The hysteria around 'asset stripping' is just that - hysteria.
We are protected in many ways by being in Swansea. Who the hell is going to buy a stadium to turn into a shopping centre when you can't give land away.
There is a genuine financial play which relies on the club remaining in the PL and gambles (although it's not much of a gamble) on next TV rights being higher than these. We all tend to think that the money will drop out of football, but I don't think that's right. It may do in the UK but it's the worldwide rights that are crucial. These guys, being American, may be taking an educated guess that the game will boom at some point in the States. And if it does, then they can take healthy dividends over a five year period and then flip the asset for double what they pay when that U.S. boom happens. Additionally the money involved from China, Asia in general (specifically India) and Africa could grow exponentially.
The only way they would make a return is if we remain at the top table. Unless they are morons, they will understand that.
I know it's been mentioned before that there is a one in four chance of relegation, but actually is that really true into the future? The finances are becoming so different from next season on, that clubs coming up will be odds on to go back down. You could end up with a situation that the same few clubs just bounce back and forth each year with everyone else remaining largely protected. Doesn't mean we won't go down, but the odds would be greatly in our favour.
In my mind, the battle is not to stop it unless the Trust could genuinely find 'better' investors, but more to add in every protection it possibly can. That's what I mean when I say about the Trust thinking outside the box. I should say that I think the Trust probably is doing so and focussing on the 'right' thing, but some on here are not doing so and are instead talking about %s or whatever, which is not in my opinion the right thing to now do and is a distraction.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:13 - Apr 11 with 1131 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:57 - Apr 11 by AngelRangelQS
Why does it become less valuable if the Trust have 25%? I don't understand the legalities behind it so what difference is there between the Trust having 25 and the Americans 75 and the trust having 21, MM and HJ having 2 each and the Americans having 75? Is it just the ability to dilute the shares?
The new owners won't have 75% - they'll have 75% plus one share and the last share is where all the value is.
There are no decisions that you cannot make with 75% plus one share. It's full control. There are certain things you can't do with one share less than 75%.
Having said that, in this particular case, the Trust wouldn't be able to exercise rights to buy additional shares anyway even if it had 25% as it wouldn't have the money to do so. As Ux said, the rights that 25% would give could also easily be written into a shareholders agreement with the Trust staying at 21%. It's not worth getting hung up on the % - the devil will be in the detail of an agreement.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:19 - Apr 11 with 1127 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:07 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
I agree with you.
The hysteria around 'asset stripping' is just that - hysteria.
We are protected in many ways by being in Swansea. Who the hell is going to buy a stadium to turn into a shopping centre when you can't give land away.
There is a genuine financial play which relies on the club remaining in the PL and gambles (although it's not much of a gamble) on next TV rights being higher than these. We all tend to think that the money will drop out of football, but I don't think that's right. It may do in the UK but it's the worldwide rights that are crucial. These guys, being American, may be taking an educated guess that the game will boom at some point in the States. And if it does, then they can take healthy dividends over a five year period and then flip the asset for double what they pay when that U.S. boom happens. Additionally the money involved from China, Asia in general (specifically India) and Africa could grow exponentially.
The only way they would make a return is if we remain at the top table. Unless they are morons, they will understand that.
I know it's been mentioned before that there is a one in four chance of relegation, but actually is that really true into the future? The finances are becoming so different from next season on, that clubs coming up will be odds on to go back down. You could end up with a situation that the same few clubs just bounce back and forth each year with everyone else remaining largely protected. Doesn't mean we won't go down, but the odds would be greatly in our favour.
In my mind, the battle is not to stop it unless the Trust could genuinely find 'better' investors, but more to add in every protection it possibly can. That's what I mean when I say about the Trust thinking outside the box. I should say that I think the Trust probably is doing so and focussing on the 'right' thing, but some on here are not doing so and are instead talking about %s or whatever, which is not in my opinion the right thing to now do and is a distraction.
We've got, thankfully, people much savvier than me looking at what we can do, what we need etc. Absolutely critical I agree. The 25% is a simplistic and potentially misleading area of focus.
If I was the Yanks, I'd be playing this relatively straightly, pretty much as you outline. I too see TV deals only going upwards especially globally. Couple that with a club that is seemingly significantly undervalued by some people and, merely by keeping us ticking along, enhancing the club, you could sell the club 5 years down the line for a significant profit.
I see no reason why tv deals aren't going to continue to rise - here and abroad. People say the bottom will fall out of football but I don't think that has any basis. Friday night football next season will be hugely popular IMO
1
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:29 - Apr 11 with 1102 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:19 - Apr 11 by Uxbridge
We've got, thankfully, people much savvier than me looking at what we can do, what we need etc. Absolutely critical I agree. The 25% is a simplistic and potentially misleading area of focus.
If I was the Yanks, I'd be playing this relatively straightly, pretty much as you outline. I too see TV deals only going upwards especially globally. Couple that with a club that is seemingly significantly undervalued by some people and, merely by keeping us ticking along, enhancing the club, you could sell the club 5 years down the line for a significant profit.
Exactly.
Far easier to see the return on that rather than working out how you can asset strip a club with no other use of stadium or training ground. It's not like Westfield are going to decide to build a huge shopping mall at Morfa.
Add to the TV deals an increase in commercial revenue, stadium naming, shirt sponsorship and an extra 6,000 seats and you could double your money in short order.
The mistake most make in this situation is trying to run the club when they know nothing about it - I assume that's where keeping Huw Jenkins comes in. I expect changes on the commercial side fairly swiftly.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:33 - Apr 11 with 1096 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 13:41 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
For clarity - I completely believe that the Trust were not informed. For clarity, I completely don't believe that the same was the case for others.
I imagine that the others were so p****d off over the last time round that they decided to keep the Trust out of it and aim to win a PR battle before it started. At least everyone now knows where they stand - there is no longer a collaborative board in place.
As i said - it's sad.
Agreed.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:42 - Apr 11 with 1084 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:29 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
Exactly.
Far easier to see the return on that rather than working out how you can asset strip a club with no other use of stadium or training ground. It's not like Westfield are going to decide to build a huge shopping mall at Morfa.
Add to the TV deals an increase in commercial revenue, stadium naming, shirt sponsorship and an extra 6,000 seats and you could double your money in short order.
The mistake most make in this situation is trying to run the club when they know nothing about it - I assume that's where keeping Huw Jenkins comes in. I expect changes on the commercial side fairly swiftly.
Those 6k seats are by far the least lucrative of those, and require by far the most investment to achieve.
Not convinced any deals makes expansion more or less likely, for all the media keep suggesting it.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:48 - Apr 11 with 1069 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:29 - Apr 11 by londonlisa2001
Exactly.
Far easier to see the return on that rather than working out how you can asset strip a club with no other use of stadium or training ground. It's not like Westfield are going to decide to build a huge shopping mall at Morfa.
Add to the TV deals an increase in commercial revenue, stadium naming, shirt sponsorship and an extra 6,000 seats and you could double your money in short order.
The mistake most make in this situation is trying to run the club when they know nothing about it - I assume that's where keeping Huw Jenkins comes in. I expect changes on the commercial side fairly swiftly.
What I find really interesting is that Wathan speaks about everything except how DC United are doing under those guys.
After all, finances aside that's the acid test as the key to any investment fund getting involved is that the gravy train that is Prem league income gets ridden like the Kinnocks on the EU train.
DC United seem to have a fairly weak squad, aren't doing that well in a league with no relegation. I'd suggest that raises some questions in itself.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:50 - Apr 11 by blueytheblue
What I find really interesting is that Wathan speaks about everything except how DC United are doing under those guys.
After all, finances aside that's the acid test as the key to any investment fund getting involved is that the gravy train that is Prem league income gets ridden like the Kinnocks on the EU train.
DC United seem to have a fairly weak squad, aren't doing that well in a league with no relegation. I'd suggest that raises some questions in itself.
I wouldn't disagree but I wouldn't extrapolate either. Maybe this is a key reason for wanting to keep HJ onboard.
I don't think balance was something I saw in today's Q&A either, in keeping with this weekend.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
