| Trust members, 09:57 - Apr 27 with 3041 views | JackUlation |
Aother bad move by the Trust, having Trust Memberss sitting in the Directors box at last nights game, surely this should not be happening ?
|  | | |  |
| Trust members, on 20:21 - Apr 28 with 730 views | BillyChong |
| Trust members, on 19:31 - Apr 28 by Chief |
We'll see if you can practice what you preach and how long for.
I'm the one who actually has the gripe but it's you who constantly feel the need to twist multiple threads towards the case. I simply respond to your disinformation.
But we'll see if you're capable of it. |
How much in interest is the saviour Silverstein raking in on this CLN? He seems to be dragging it out | | | |
| Trust members, on 21:13 - Apr 28 with 687 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 20:21 - Apr 28 by BillyChong |
How much in interest is the saviour Silverstein raking in on this CLN? He seems to be dragging it out |
I suspect it will all be rolled into one final settlement. The £500k payment and the golden 5% will need some work by financial and legal organisations and presumably there will be a new shareholders agreement. Everything will be known by the Trust board.
The CLN is 5% but inflation is 7% in the UK so he he is notionally raking minus 2% if spends it. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust members, on 21:32 - Apr 28 with 676 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 21:13 - Apr 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suspect it will all be rolled into one final settlement. The £500k payment and the golden 5% will need some work by financial and legal organisations and presumably there will be a new shareholders agreement. Everything will be known by the Trust board.
The CLN is 5% but inflation is 7% in the UK so he he is notionally raking minus 2% if spends it. |
- what'll be rolled into one final settlement?
- what 500k payment and 5%? Do you mean the settlement the trust accepted? What's that got to do with the CLN?
- unfortunately not, they have been unable to answer some pretty fundamental questions put to them and they are still in the dark regarding the CLN apparently.
- I believe a new shareholders agreement has already been signed.
- it's 7% now, it wasn't when it was introduced. |  |
| |
| Trust members, on 23:24 - Apr 28 with 659 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 21:32 - Apr 28 by Chief |
- what'll be rolled into one final settlement?
- what 500k payment and 5%? Do you mean the settlement the trust accepted? What's that got to do with the CLN?
- unfortunately not, they have been unable to answer some pretty fundamental questions put to them and they are still in the dark regarding the CLN apparently.
- I believe a new shareholders agreement has already been signed.
- it's 7% now, it wasn't when it was introduced. |
I presumed the 5% golden share would be part of the new shareholders agreement. That makes sense. The payment logically would be at the same time.
My research indicates CLN last normally 2 years or so. The Trust having been in negotiations will have asked Silverstein the termination date so must know it I would assume.
Like most thing it seems nobody knows anything about the terms. Owners of 21% should know all this as it affects them. With a disputes now gone there is not reason not to be informed. The termination date I understand it can be flexible but not go beyond an agreed final date as I understand it. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust members, on 23:43 - Apr 28 with 655 views | Lorax |
| Trust members, on 23:24 - Apr 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I presumed the 5% golden share would be part of the new shareholders agreement. That makes sense. The payment logically would be at the same time.
My research indicates CLN last normally 2 years or so. The Trust having been in negotiations will have asked Silverstein the termination date so must know it I would assume.
Like most thing it seems nobody knows anything about the terms. Owners of 21% should know all this as it affects them. With a disputes now gone there is not reason not to be informed. The termination date I understand it can be flexible but not go beyond an agreed final date as I understand it. |
You resume...your research indicates.....more guesswork then. | | | |
| Trust members, on 07:17 - Apr 29 with 630 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 23:24 - Apr 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I presumed the 5% golden share would be part of the new shareholders agreement. That makes sense. The payment logically would be at the same time.
My research indicates CLN last normally 2 years or so. The Trust having been in negotiations will have asked Silverstein the termination date so must know it I would assume.
Like most thing it seems nobody knows anything about the terms. Owners of 21% should know all this as it affects them. With a disputes now gone there is not reason not to be informed. The termination date I understand it can be flexible but not go beyond an agreed final date as I understand it. |
- yes but I still don't see the relevance of the CLN to the trust's settlement. The 500k payment is to be be paid by the sellouts. The same time as what?
- as I say, apparently they've asked but again didn't have much back just the same vague claims that it plans to be converted soon. They last 2 years, then what? Automatically convert? Automatically refund? Triggers a decision point?
- Well as you know, the 21% shareholder has been trying to get information on the CLN ever since it's inception but hasn't received a great of information back on it from the people involved in it. Not even confirmation of who is part of it. [Post edited 29 Apr 2022 9:02]
| |
| |
| Trust members, on 08:20 - Apr 29 with 608 views | 73__73 |
What relevance is the trust to Swansea city fc and it supporters in 2022.
I’d say none whatsoever. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 14:23 - Apr 29 with 586 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 08:20 - Apr 29 by 73__73 |
What relevance is the trust to Swansea city fc and it supporters in 2022.
I’d say none whatsoever. |
The Trust needs to demonstrate somehow it is useful to the club. To date it has failed to do this.
The original logic was "The Trust knows best" and get to 25% ownership. This would allow them to veto any reckless actions (like those done by the owner of Derby County for example). It would however also block investment. The Trust would block investment to avoid dilution and therefore loss of the 25% holding. This is what the word "protection" means. The 5% golden share is a sop to this logic.
Had the Trust sold in 2016, like it should have, it would have £10-15m in the bank to reinvest. Jason L would be on their speed dial and they would now be earning 5% on a £3m deposit into the Convertible loan note. £12,500 a month income.
I have read the model rules and there is scope in there for investment and money raising schemes. Ideally they would be investors in global shares bonds and property. Their £880k in the bank in 2016 should be £1.5m by now given the markets. Getting 0.15% in the Sanrtander is what your 90 year old Grannie does.
I really is a waste of time if it is wedded to minus 6% inflationary erosion every year. At present its holding is worth around £9m and 11% is held in cash. The is 11% should be working. the Other £8m 89% is invested in the club an 'extremely high risk' investment. The Trust have learned the hard way that they MUST sell if they return to the Premier league. It could be £2m per 1%.
Three ways to get influence;
a) Investment cash (business consultant required for strategy)
b) Football knowledge (a second opinion) - consider a football consultant
c) Getting the fans "onside" to understand the owners and respect them.
The past Trust board did the reverse of c) by promoting conflict. They were set for a big court battle but retired on their stool at the end of round one being 'unable to continue'. They did enough to get the purse. Some fans call them cowards but the opponent was too big and too tough. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust members, on 14:52 - Apr 29 with 580 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 14:23 - Apr 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust needs to demonstrate somehow it is useful to the club. To date it has failed to do this.
The original logic was "The Trust knows best" and get to 25% ownership. This would allow them to veto any reckless actions (like those done by the owner of Derby County for example). It would however also block investment. The Trust would block investment to avoid dilution and therefore loss of the 25% holding. This is what the word "protection" means. The 5% golden share is a sop to this logic.
Had the Trust sold in 2016, like it should have, it would have £10-15m in the bank to reinvest. Jason L would be on their speed dial and they would now be earning 5% on a £3m deposit into the Convertible loan note. £12,500 a month income.
I have read the model rules and there is scope in there for investment and money raising schemes. Ideally they would be investors in global shares bonds and property. Their £880k in the bank in 2016 should be £1.5m by now given the markets. Getting 0.15% in the Sanrtander is what your 90 year old Grannie does.
I really is a waste of time if it is wedded to minus 6% inflationary erosion every year. At present its holding is worth around £9m and 11% is held in cash. The is 11% should be working. the Other £8m 89% is invested in the club an 'extremely high risk' investment. The Trust have learned the hard way that they MUST sell if they return to the Premier league. It could be £2m per 1%.
Three ways to get influence;
a) Investment cash (business consultant required for strategy)
b) Football knowledge (a second opinion) - consider a football consultant
c) Getting the fans "onside" to understand the owners and respect them.
The past Trust board did the reverse of c) by promoting conflict. They were set for a big court battle but retired on their stool at the end of round one being 'unable to continue'. They did enough to get the purse. Some fans call them cowards but the opponent was too big and too tough. |
It's taken you less than 24 hours to relapse and drag up all if this again I see. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 15:14 - Apr 29 with 572 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 14:52 - Apr 29 by Chief |
It's taken you less than 24 hours to relapse and drag up all if this again I see. |
I try to be constructive Chief. I believe the Trust is working at 5% of its capacity. It can do so much more.
The same question comes up. Interest 0.15% in Santander (now probably 0.5%) Inflation rate 7%. What are they going to do about it?
£1,400,000 in the bank deposit. Real term loss £91,000 per year £7,500 pcm. £250 a day and every day. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust members, on 15:26 - Apr 29 with 565 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 15:14 - Apr 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I try to be constructive Chief. I believe the Trust is working at 5% of its capacity. It can do so much more.
The same question comes up. Interest 0.15% in Santander (now probably 0.5%) Inflation rate 7%. What are they going to do about it?
£1,400,000 in the bank deposit. Real term loss £91,000 per year £7,500 pcm. £250 a day and every day. |
Right so what you asked yesterday just applies to me? You don't want me asking awkward questions or highlighting inconvenient truths of the sellouts and Americans conduct, but it's ok for to continue these propaganda posts? | |
| |
| Trust members, on 16:38 - Apr 29 with 548 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 15:26 - Apr 29 by Chief |
Right so what you asked yesterday just applies to me? You don't want me asking awkward questions or highlighting inconvenient truths of the sellouts and Americans conduct, but it's ok for to continue these propaganda posts? |
The first step in your rehabilitation into the real world is the ceasing to use pejorative words like 'sellouts'. The legal case against them was investigated in micro detail for 6 years and they have come to an agreement to bury the hatchets and move forwards united.
You will find your rhetoric based on a alluring but fake narrative will see you increasingly isolated and sounding like a hard line political activist no one listens to. The members have let this confrontation approach run its course and it has ended after SIX YEARS in modet settlement. Brexit was resolved more quickly. ` | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust members, on 16:43 - Apr 29 with 546 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 16:38 - Apr 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The first step in your rehabilitation into the real world is the ceasing to use pejorative words like 'sellouts'. The legal case against them was investigated in micro detail for 6 years and they have come to an agreement to bury the hatchets and move forwards united.
You will find your rhetoric based on a alluring but fake narrative will see you increasingly isolated and sounding like a hard line political activist no one listens to. The members have let this confrontation approach run its course and it has ended after SIX YEARS in modet settlement. Brexit was resolved more quickly. ` |
So it's a yes to my question then.
I'm not allowed to ask awkward questions and the sellouts conduct must be brushed under the carpet but it's fine for you constantly criticise the trust, it's members, the case with a constant barrage of misinformation, lies and insults.
Not happening sorry. | |
| |
| Trust members, on 17:41 - Apr 29 with 531 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust members, on 16:43 - Apr 29 by Chief |
So it's a yes to my question then.
I'm not allowed to ask awkward questions and the sellouts conduct must be brushed under the carpet but it's fine for you constantly criticise the trust, it's members, the case with a constant barrage of misinformation, lies and insults.
Not happening sorry. |
You are /were a Trust member. Your awkward questions are required for things you are responsible for like the SIX LONG WASTED years.
You can debate the actions of the sellers from an historical view point but all grievances have been settled and it will sound like sour grapes. Your dream of going to court with other peoples money did not work out.
The way I see it the club needs the remaining sellers but do not need the old style Trust. I have high hope for the new board. If hey take business advice and invest I might well join. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust members, on 18:12 - Apr 29 with 515 views | Chief |
| Trust members, on 17:41 - Apr 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are /were a Trust member. Your awkward questions are required for things you are responsible for like the SIX LONG WASTED years.
You can debate the actions of the sellers from an historical view point but all grievances have been settled and it will sound like sour grapes. Your dream of going to court with other peoples money did not work out.
The way I see it the club needs the remaining sellers but do not need the old style Trust. I have high hope for the new board. If hey take business advice and invest I might well join. |
I am asking awkward questions of the trust. I'm capable of rational balanced thought. I'm capable of criticising them when it's warranted, just as I praise the owners when they act worthy.
You however are far too blinkered, constantly criticise the trust with ridiculous slurs and lies, blaming them for the most ridiculous things, but never ever accept any wrongdoing on behalf of the sellouts or the Americans, which frankly isn't natural. Especially considering what they conspired to do.
And after asking me to stop talking about the trust and case last night, here you are still banging on about. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
