| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? 20:33 - Oct 28 with 14279 views | NickyJack |
There's lot of anger towards Jenkins at the moment but what about the owners? Here me out. He was the owner of the club for 12 /13 years and no one can deny the excellent job he did. Perhaps we would still be in the lower divisions without him. Then when he and the rest of them sold their shares, which I agree was a mistake but I genuinely believe that he meant the best for the club and that he thought someone with more money would be better suited and/or just didn't want the stress of it anymore. Some would say he cashed in and left it to someone else but I don't see it like that. HOWEVER, the yanks promised they would take the club to the next level (we were a mid-table side at the time, so therefore challenging for Europe) and have spent NO MONEY OF THEIR OWN WHATSOEVER. Last season, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as it was new to them But this season, its not honest mistakes, it's ignorance. According to this ( http://www.transferleague.co.uk/swansea/english-football-teams/swansea-city-tran since they took over, our net spend has been NEGATIVE £33 MILLION. I appreciate there are expenses other than buying players, but it should never be that low. We have sold player upon player for big bucks and not spent the money to replace them, and the big signings we have made have been utter sh*t. The single biggest reason for our decline has been lack of investment and poor recruitment, so surely our anger should be equally, if not more, towards the yanks? |  | | |  |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 18:37 - Oct 29 with 2384 views | monmouth |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:33 - Oct 29 by londonlisa2001 |
The reality though xmastree, is that whatever went on in terms of who knew what and when, there is simply no excuse for selling the club blind.
And that's what happened. You don't know and nor does anyone else outside the Americans, who owns the club and therefore they can't possibly know what their intentions were. And that's unforgivable, however understandable the desire for people to monetise their holding was. At the end, the money was more important than the future of the club. And at the start of this, it was expressly stated that that situation would NEVER be allowed to happen again.
Everything else is just noise in many ways. |
Yep. Bravo. Let’s have an answer to that one then |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:32 - Oct 29 with 2355 views | xmastree |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 18:37 - Oct 29 by monmouth |
Yep. Bravo. Let’s have an answer to that one then |
Too late though Mon. Why? I came on here and offered a view. Just got called a k@@@ for it. You seem a decent poster. As for some of the others !. I'm not prepared to take sh!t. After all i just know some of them. I haven't done anything other than that . |  | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:35 - Oct 29 with 2348 views | whoflungdung |
Xmas
If you post summat some don't agree with you ll be hammered
Divided we are and its evident on here | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:36 - Oct 29 with 2344 views | jasfan |
It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the former board of directors played a signficant role in the unprecedented success that the football club has enjoyed since 2002. However I don't believe that they alone got the football club and business to the Premiership. As has been stated before, it was a collective effort with matters both off and on the field contributing to that success.
Would there have been a Premier League football club business to sell in the first place without the £27m Liberty Stadium? Much of the the preparatory work for that was done before the previous board got involved, including the much maligned City Council, who as Lawrence Bailey has stated in the Evening Post signed off on the deal, days before the match with Hull. So others took risks for the club too. It was the Council's £50m Morfa development and £2m from the Football Foundation that actually paid for the stadium.
Furthermore, all of the following have contributed in one way or other to the success of the Football Club since 2003 and perhaps some were crucial in reaching the Premier League and its financial riches:
The initiatiors of the Trust movement, the "Supporters March", CVA to make the club debt free, Swansea City Council, The Football Foundation, The £27m Liberty Stadium, The Premier League TV deal monies, LD's marketing and commercial skills, JVZ's tact and diplomacy, HJ's Chairmanship and DOF role, MM's business knowledge, The Trust and last but by no means least the supporters and the £100,000 they raised and risked at that time . In other words a collective effort.
As for those Directors who have "worked hard" in specifc roles at the Club, it should be noted that they were handsomely remunerated for carrying out their duties, in addition to any dividends, Directors' perks or benefits their business interests could have had from their association with the the club. As far as I am aware that does not change the status of the shares they owned or their entitlement to sell them without the knowledge of other shareholders, namely the Supporters Trust.
Legally I will assume that the Directors were entitled to sell their shares to whoever they wished, but it's the manner of the sale and the choice of buyers that has been disappointing.
Frankly I have no personal animosity towards the former board, nor do I care about how much they made from their share sale - only that it might have disadvantaged the Trust and the football club. It's just been a very sad and disappointing episode in the football club's history and one that I believe could have been avoided. [Post edited 2 Nov 2017 20:15]
| | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:37 - Oct 29 with 2335 views | Darran |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:35 - Oct 29 by whoflungdung |
Xmas
If you post summat some don't agree with you ll be hammered
Divided we are and its evident on here |
Yeah but you agree with him anyway seeing as you were all for the sale and made many posts telling the rest of us we were all wrong for not welcoming the Yanks with open arms you pitiful çunt. |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:46 - Oct 29 with 2322 views | longlostjack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:32 - Oct 29 by xmastree |
Too late though Mon. Why? I came on here and offered a view. Just got called a k@@@ for it. You seem a decent poster. As for some of the others !. I'm not prepared to take sh!t. After all i just know some of them. I haven't done anything other than that . |
My heart bleeds. Man up. |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:13 - Oct 29 with 2299 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:32 - Oct 29 by xmastree |
Too late though Mon. Why? I came on here and offered a view. Just got called a k@@@ for it. You seem a decent poster. As for some of the others !. I'm not prepared to take sh!t. After all i just know some of them. I haven't done anything other than that . |
Well you didn't get called anything by me, and you have ignored my perfectly reasonable question.
That's the problem. There is no answer to it.
The insinuation about the Trust (or strictly, a member of the Trust), knowing about it pales when it comes to answering that basic question.
Why did a group of people that swore they would NEVER jeopardise the future of the club and gamble away its very existence, sell to unknown parties?
Not why did they sell - we can understand, if not agree. Not even why did they not inform the Trust - again, as Shaky pointed out on another thread, there could be an explanation that, again, we could understand, even if we never agreed. But why sell when they didn't know the identities of those purchasing the club, and, therefore, could never know what the intentions were.
There is no answer is there?
Edited to add: I should have said other than the obvious... [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 20:15]
| | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:52 - Oct 29 with 2249 views | Davillin |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:29 - Oct 29 by Shaky |
Bottom line Notrac is that the old shareholders did not have any capital to invest in the club, when it was in urgent need thereof.
Something had to give.
End of story. |
Shakey, just how much capital have the "new shareholders" invested in the club?
For your answer, you may include rumours of capital "invested," but not what they paid to buy out the old shareholders, because that was never a rumour. [Please identify sources of factual and rumoured information. Thanks.]
Such a bald-faced lie doesn't count as "investment" or a rumour. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 22:35 - Oct 29 with 2237 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:52 - Oct 29 by Davillin |
Shakey, just how much capital have the "new shareholders" invested in the club?
For your answer, you may include rumours of capital "invested," but not what they paid to buy out the old shareholders, because that was never a rumour. [Please identify sources of factual and rumoured information. Thanks.]
Such a bald-faced lie doesn't count as "investment" or a rumour. |
Does it matter? |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 22:42 - Oct 29 with 2228 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:32 - Oct 29 by xmastree |
Too late though Mon. Why? I came on here and offered a view. Just got called a k@@@ for it. You seem a decent poster. As for some of the others !. I'm not prepared to take sh!t. After all i just know some of them. I haven't done anything other than that . |
If it is ''the truth'' then say what you have to say. There is no use saying ''I would say... but you all shout at me'' - only to ignore the fact that you can tell people what happened who have told you outright that they will not do as you fear/predict.
Hence why I offered the assurance and added ''unless it is posturing''. There is no reason what so ever to withold what you say to be the truth unless it is just posturing surely? | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 09:26 - Oct 30 with 2161 views | Shaky |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:52 - Oct 29 by Davillin |
Shakey, just how much capital have the "new shareholders" invested in the club?
For your answer, you may include rumours of capital "invested," but not what they paid to buy out the old shareholders, because that was never a rumour. [Please identify sources of factual and rumoured information. Thanks.]
Such a bald-faced lie doesn't count as "investment" or a rumour. |
I am simply not prepared to make the same point for a third time, when I was quite open about this first time around.
But to offer something new, it is quite possible that Kaplan & Co have provided a loan guarantee or comfort letter to shore up some kind of debt financing for the club.
That sort of thing happens all the time and is akin to committing fresh share capital that has not been drawn down. Remember the club is effectively a subsidiary of a Delaware parent company.
It is also possible they will unveil a comprehensive financing package or proposal when the uncertainty regarding the stadium purchase and expansion has been cleared up. That's the way you would do it by the book, matching financing to the type of assets you are buying.
As for the semantics surrounding the word investment, Kapalan & Co have certainly made an investment of £70 million.
They have not invested the £70 million in new shares in the club, but that in no way alters the amount of grey hairs they will get over their financial exposure. |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 09:44 - Oct 30 with 2145 views | westside |
How much have the yanks put into the club ?
How much have the yanks taken out of the club ? |  | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 10:27 - Oct 30 with 2120 views | whiterock |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 09:44 - Oct 30 by westside |
How much have the yanks put into the club ?
How much have the yanks taken out of the club ? |
Zero and Zero
Why do people measure owners by how much they are going to put in, I'd rather a sustainable club living within our means, there must be 20/30 million in the pot for January, spend that, no more. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:27 - Oct 30 with 2080 views | Uppa_Swans |
Blaming the owners for the current state of affairs is like leaving your front door open and then claiming it's the burglar's fault for nicking your TV. The Americans are venture capitalists. This is what they do. They want a return on their investment. Every man and his dog knows that. The real guilty party are those current and ex-stakeholders who sold out to them. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:01 - Oct 30 with 2005 views | Uxbridge |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:13 - Oct 29 by londonlisa2001 |
Well you didn't get called anything by me, and you have ignored my perfectly reasonable question.
That's the problem. There is no answer to it.
The insinuation about the Trust (or strictly, a member of the Trust), knowing about it pales when it comes to answering that basic question.
Why did a group of people that swore they would NEVER jeopardise the future of the club and gamble away its very existence, sell to unknown parties?
Not why did they sell - we can understand, if not agree. Not even why did they not inform the Trust - again, as Shaky pointed out on another thread, there could be an explanation that, again, we could understand, even if we never agreed. But why sell when they didn't know the identities of those purchasing the club, and, therefore, could never know what the intentions were.
There is no answer is there?
Edited to add: I should have said other than the obvious... [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 20:15]
|
I haven't seen the post insinuating that someone on the Trust knew all about the deal, but that's been done to death in the past. All I can say is that Jenkins and Levien have both commented publicly plenty of times saying that they deliberately kept the Trust out of the loop.
Now, obviously, I can't know for certain if individuals knew, however if someone's got something to say I'd rather they put up or shut up. Otherwise, in the absence of anything apart from nudges and winks, I'm calling bulls hit on this and suspect this is the work of people trying to deflect things away from others. [Post edited 30 Oct 2017 17:03]
|  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:39 - Oct 30 with 1937 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:01 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
I haven't seen the post insinuating that someone on the Trust knew all about the deal, but that's been done to death in the past. All I can say is that Jenkins and Levien have both commented publicly plenty of times saying that they deliberately kept the Trust out of the loop.
Now, obviously, I can't know for certain if individuals knew, however if someone's got something to say I'd rather they put up or shut up. Otherwise, in the absence of anything apart from nudges and winks, I'm calling bulls hit on this and suspect this is the work of people trying to deflect things away from others. [Post edited 30 Oct 2017 17:03]
|
I was attempting to cut through the defection and get an answer to the real question Ux, but to no avail. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:03 - Oct 30 with 1901 views | Uxbridge |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 19:39 - Oct 30 by londonlisa2001 |
I was attempting to cut through the defection and get an answer to the real question Ux, but to no avail. |
Fair enough Lisa. I wish you well on that! | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:33 - Oct 30 with 1880 views | Rancid |
If I ever saw them I'd say piss all to be honest.If i got talking to them then I'd say it's all been handled wrongly.I couldn't be arsed screaming abuse at the game but Id sign a petition or something.
This ain't no Tony Petty scenario just yet.Its new to us and we dont like change and will always be sceptical because of the Petty memories but we're still a Premier League side, albeit a floundering one but until things go massively wrong then I dont think the fans will get 'angry'.
Huw Jenkins never paid my bills before he became a millionaire and the kunt still don't now but he's given me 7 or 8 years of great times as a Swans fan so yeah he's a tw@t but hes a tw@t who built us up and gave us what we thought we'd never dream of pre Martinez.
Maybe the Yanks will sack him and do things their way.That would be interesting.A lot of money spunked on 5 players and the only one cutting it is Tammy Abraham who's probably the cheapest of the 5.
Looks like bad business at the moment and if it continues and Huw is signing these players then the Yanks might just see that he's no longer some football maverick that they thought he was.I think that's the best case scenario.
What I think will happen is the Yanks will sell up once we're relegated and walk away with a smile and a fatter purse because there's not 1 more asset left at the club they can make more money on. |  | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:37 - Oct 31 with 1813 views | LeonWasGod |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:13 - Oct 29 by londonlisa2001 |
Well you didn't get called anything by me, and you have ignored my perfectly reasonable question.
That's the problem. There is no answer to it.
The insinuation about the Trust (or strictly, a member of the Trust), knowing about it pales when it comes to answering that basic question.
Why did a group of people that swore they would NEVER jeopardise the future of the club and gamble away its very existence, sell to unknown parties?
Not why did they sell - we can understand, if not agree. Not even why did they not inform the Trust - again, as Shaky pointed out on another thread, there could be an explanation that, again, we could understand, even if we never agreed. But why sell when they didn't know the identities of those purchasing the club, and, therefore, could never know what the intentions were.
There is no answer is there?
Edited to add: I should have said other than the obvious... [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 20:15]
|
There isn't, correct. But similarly they are no longer the ones calling the shots and running the club. All the important decisions are now made by the Americans, from strategy and business planning, how much money is available for what, who's in what senior positions, etc. Buck stops with them now, so I think them being in the spotlight is justified. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
