| Trust statement 20:05 - Jun 13 with 35910 views | Joe_bradshaw |
The court case is happening at last.
Thanks Joe, a little bit from me to everyone.
Hi folks, this is clearly a topic many enjoy commenting on, but please remain consistent in your responses avoiding potential slurs on any characters involved and remain objective.
Thanks ðŸ‘
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust statement on 19:15 - Jun 18 with 1574 views | Gwyn737 |
| Trust statement on 19:10 - Jun 18 by max936 |
I've given up on this, but think the owners are trying to run a tight ship while making us competitive at the same time, so I give them some gratis for that, I didn't want them here in first place, unlike some who welcomed them, whilst I still have some suspicious thoughts, the team has done pretty well, all considered. |
I think the point is Max, that whatever we think of the current owners, we don’t know what or who is down the line.
The legal action is about future-proofing. |  | | |
| Trust statement on 19:17 - Jun 18 with 1562 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 19:15 - Jun 18 by Gwyn737 |
I think the point is Max, that whatever we think of the current owners, we don’t know what or who is down the line.
The legal action is about future-proofing. |
This is it.
As long as they sell up at a profit, they literally will not care one iota who they sell the club to. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:18 - Jun 18 with 1554 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 19:15 - Jun 18 by Gwyn737 |
I think the point is Max, that whatever we think of the current owners, we don’t know what or who is down the line.
The legal action is about future-proofing. |
Thank you.
And with that, I will end my involvement as I hope it’s apparent to anyone ‘neutral’ or wavering about whether the right things are being done who may be reading the thread what the issues actually are. | | | |
| Trust statement on 19:47 - Jun 18 with 1496 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 19:18 - Jun 18 by londonlisa2001 |
Thank you.
And with that, I will end my involvement as I hope it’s apparent to anyone ‘neutral’ or wavering about whether the right things are being done who may be reading the thread what the issues actually are. |
Pity | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:48 - Jun 18 with 1495 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 19:17 - Jun 18 by Chief |
This is it.
As long as they sell up at a profit, they literally will not care one iota who they sell the club to. |
We could be sold to people who will have some real clout.
Try being POSITIVE instead of NEGATIVE
I read so much about negativity on here. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 19:54 - Jun 18 with 1495 views | Gwyn737 |
| Trust statement on 19:48 - Jun 18 by onehunglow |
We could be sold to people who will have some real clout.
Try being POSITIVE instead of NEGATIVE
I read so much about negativity on here. |
Successful legal action will protect the club and take the worry out of who the next owners are.
It’s not being negative or positive; just sensible. | | | |
| Trust statement on 19:55 - Jun 18 with 1482 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 19:54 - Jun 18 by Gwyn737 |
Successful legal action will protect the club and take the worry out of who the next owners are.
It’s not being negative or positive; just sensible. |
Looking at the reasons Gwyn,it doesnt look that way to me | |
| |
| Trust statement on 20:23 - Jun 18 with 1480 views | Gwyn737 |
| Trust statement on 19:55 - Jun 18 by onehunglow |
Looking at the reasons Gwyn,it doesnt look that way to me |
I’m more looking at outcomes than opinions.
A successful outcome for the trust secures the future of the club; Trust involvement can never be diluted.
In this instance, I don’t care about the last board or the current board. I just want security that the club will be there in my old age.
I’m not looking to blame anyone for anything. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust statement on 20:42 - Jun 18 with 1466 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 19:06 - Jun 18 by londonlisa2001 |
No one has said anything about ‘fake valuations’.
No one has said anything about criminal records.
But you have absolutely no idea who will own the club in the future. So how can you say what will and won’t happen.
Who says no one cares about inflation? Or investment? You. That’s who.
As an aside, your maths is awful.
£14m (simply using your figure), at a 3% inflation rate is worth £13,592,233.01 In one year ( a ‘cost’ of £407,767), is worth £10,417,314.81 after 10 years, and worth £7,751,460.56 after 20 years.
Not that it is remotely relevant, but just to help and all that.
How much would it be worth if the Trust has been diluted to 5% of the club in 5 years and the club is still worth what the latest valuation used was plus 3% annual inflation? Try to work it out. Then come back to us. |
The SCST stated falsely in my view that the US people could easily dilute the SCST holding 'to nothing'. I contest this. I stated that if valuations were realistic and the club doing reasonably well the US people would require enormous sums. it is not realistic. The SCST cannot be legally diluted to 5% with out enormous sums invested. The owners will not allow this nor will they drive the club into the ground.
You stated that they could in fact do this with a couple of special resolutions and make their own valuation for the club suggesting they might under value it. This sound fraudulent to me and I doubted they would consider such practices and it could be contested in any case.
I have asked as part of the logic for 'cashing in acrimonously' what is the investment strategy. To be of any benefit long term it must be protected from inflation. Your response give no indication of any such plan. You even dispute that inflation is relevant despite the almost halving of the value of the holding over 20 years by your own sums. Football inflatio is likely to be greater than the UK Government target.
The wording in the charter appears vague. It makes a huge difference. This is obvious to the economially literate people. I can see no economic benefit of legal action. It is nt the purpose of a SCST to fight moral causes settke scores or entrich third parties, The SCST do not need to work on the basis of an impending calamity.
The good ship Swansea city is not sinking. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 20:53 - Jun 18 with 1454 views | max936 |
| Trust statement on 19:15 - Jun 18 by Gwyn737 |
I think the point is Max, that whatever we think of the current owners, we don’t know what or who is down the line.
The legal action is about future-proofing. |
I know, I know, I know mun and I agree 100%, but round and round with go its all be said time and time again, add Infinium. my eyes are hurting. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 20:56 - Jun 18 with 1443 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 20:42 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The SCST stated falsely in my view that the US people could easily dilute the SCST holding 'to nothing'. I contest this. I stated that if valuations were realistic and the club doing reasonably well the US people would require enormous sums. it is not realistic. The SCST cannot be legally diluted to 5% with out enormous sums invested. The owners will not allow this nor will they drive the club into the ground.
You stated that they could in fact do this with a couple of special resolutions and make their own valuation for the club suggesting they might under value it. This sound fraudulent to me and I doubted they would consider such practices and it could be contested in any case.
I have asked as part of the logic for 'cashing in acrimonously' what is the investment strategy. To be of any benefit long term it must be protected from inflation. Your response give no indication of any such plan. You even dispute that inflation is relevant despite the almost halving of the value of the holding over 20 years by your own sums. Football inflatio is likely to be greater than the UK Government target.
The wording in the charter appears vague. It makes a huge difference. This is obvious to the economially literate people. I can see no economic benefit of legal action. It is nt the purpose of a SCST to fight moral causes settke scores or entrich third parties, The SCST do not need to work on the basis of an impending calamity.
The good ship Swansea city is not sinking. |
That is a POSITIVE outlook.
Im not sure most on here have any idea as to what is negative in life.
Staggering ignorance on an industrial scale.TIVE about our club's future
Res's scenario is a positive one,the rest of you are NEGATIVE about the club's future ;hence the need for a Trust to bale out if the club goes bust. You don't see this ,do you? | |
| |
| Trust statement on 21:03 - Jun 18 with 1446 views | max936 |
| Trust statement on 19:14 - Jun 18 by londonlisa2001 |
Protection for the Trust is a permanent issue, not a matter of the short term only. No one knows who will own us in the future or what their motivations will be.
You have to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. To do anything else is negligent. |
I've never suggested anything different and excuse me for being blunt, but I haven't just rowed up the Tawe using my hands, I know exactly what's at stake its all been said by many including myself at some point, I'am totally aware of what's gone on and what's at stake and I'm 100% behind the Trust, but things have moved on, the Case is going to Court, lets, let things take its course instead of rehashing things over and over, its just giving the others the opportunity to repeat and repeat. Surely its time to move away and see things run their course. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 21:07 - Jun 18 with 1426 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 21:03 - Jun 18 by max936 |
I've never suggested anything different and excuse me for being blunt, but I haven't just rowed up the Tawe using my hands, I know exactly what's at stake its all been said by many including myself at some point, I'am totally aware of what's gone on and what's at stake and I'm 100% behind the Trust, but things have moved on, the Case is going to Court, lets, let things take its course instead of rehashing things over and over, its just giving the others the opportunity to repeat and repeat. Surely its time to move away and see things run their course. |
And not come down the Lagan either | |
| |
| Trust statement on 22:28 - Jun 18 with 1393 views | max936 |
| Trust statement on 21:07 - Jun 18 by onehunglow |
And not come down the Lagan either |
Like swimming against the first spring tide of the year, apparently there's intelligent people posting on this forum........ | |
| |
| Trust statement on 22:33 - Jun 18 with 1390 views | 3swan |
| Trust statement on 20:56 - Jun 18 by onehunglow |
That is a POSITIVE outlook.
Im not sure most on here have any idea as to what is negative in life.
Staggering ignorance on an industrial scale.TIVE about our club's future
Res's scenario is a positive one,the rest of you are NEGATIVE about the club's future ;hence the need for a Trust to bale out if the club goes bust. You don't see this ,do you? |
I wasn't going to post again on this thread as it's been done to death but as you have basically said that all other posters are being negative then I will make one last post. There is positive and negative to most situations but reality says look at all outcomes. The legal case isn't all about saving the club years down the line. If the case is won it's down to a fact that legal rules were broken. I'm a Trust member and voted for legal action but not for one moment was it for revenge.Remember what you have said many times that we don't know you and not to assume, it works both ways.
that's my last on this thread | | | |
| Trust statement on 22:34 - Jun 18 with 1387 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 20:42 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The SCST stated falsely in my view that the US people could easily dilute the SCST holding 'to nothing'. I contest this. I stated that if valuations were realistic and the club doing reasonably well the US people would require enormous sums. it is not realistic. The SCST cannot be legally diluted to 5% with out enormous sums invested. The owners will not allow this nor will they drive the club into the ground.
You stated that they could in fact do this with a couple of special resolutions and make their own valuation for the club suggesting they might under value it. This sound fraudulent to me and I doubted they would consider such practices and it could be contested in any case.
I have asked as part of the logic for 'cashing in acrimonously' what is the investment strategy. To be of any benefit long term it must be protected from inflation. Your response give no indication of any such plan. You even dispute that inflation is relevant despite the almost halving of the value of the holding over 20 years by your own sums. Football inflatio is likely to be greater than the UK Government target.
The wording in the charter appears vague. It makes a huge difference. This is obvious to the economially literate people. I can see no economic benefit of legal action. It is nt the purpose of a SCST to fight moral causes settke scores or entrich third parties, The SCST do not need to work on the basis of an impending calamity.
The good ship Swansea city is not sinking. |
Well is it false or can it be done?
Earlier you were saying they would illegally or dishonestly embezzle funds off the club but now you're saying the owners are not capable of fraud?
Again why does what the trust does with its finances concern you? This is a 'divorce' is it not? They obviously have a plan. And they don't need to justify it to you before the case has even started.
You can't see any economic benefit in potentially getting paid for shares at a rate higher than they're currently worth or are likely to be worth in the foreseeable future? Did you see the economic benefits for the sellouts selling up when they did? This should be obvious to economic literate people.
The good ship Swansea isn't sinking. But it could very well do in future.
That last comment perfectly demonstrates how you still can't grasp this! | |
| |
| Trust statement on 23:34 - Jun 18 with 1359 views | Gwyn737 |
| Trust statement on 22:33 - Jun 18 by 3swan |
I wasn't going to post again on this thread as it's been done to death but as you have basically said that all other posters are being negative then I will make one last post. There is positive and negative to most situations but reality says look at all outcomes. The legal case isn't all about saving the club years down the line. If the case is won it's down to a fact that legal rules were broken. I'm a Trust member and voted for legal action but not for one moment was it for revenge.Remember what you have said many times that we don't know you and not to assume, it works both ways.
that's my last on this thread |
That is beautifully put 👠| | | |
| Trust statement on 00:03 - Jun 19 with 1350 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 22:34 - Jun 18 by Chief |
Well is it false or can it be done?
Earlier you were saying they would illegally or dishonestly embezzle funds off the club but now you're saying the owners are not capable of fraud?
Again why does what the trust does with its finances concern you? This is a 'divorce' is it not? They obviously have a plan. And they don't need to justify it to you before the case has even started.
You can't see any economic benefit in potentially getting paid for shares at a rate higher than they're currently worth or are likely to be worth in the foreseeable future? Did you see the economic benefits for the sellouts selling up when they did? This should be obvious to economic literate people.
The good ship Swansea isn't sinking. But it could very well do in future.
That last comment perfectly demonstrates how you still can't grasp this! |
The statement in my opinion is not correct. It was probably an error and had not been checked.
The SCST and the QC can make comments that the action will not affect the 'club'.
They mean it will not affect the club directly and the bills will be sent to Swansea city LLC
(Delaware).
It will affect the club indirectly however as SCFC Delaware will tell Winter to recover the costs from SCFC (Wales) over time to cover any loses. With all big wages gone, cut backs, player sales, and increased ticket prices can generate profits. Profits allow dividends. My use of the word 'indirectly' did not indicate illegal activity.
Most fans perhaps even members do not accept it is a divorce and many talk hopefully of an out of court settlement. I believe they areover optimistic. I do not believe members would vote to leave the club entirely for potentially decades if given the choice.
I am testing the claim that the SCST will have a substantial "nest egg" for the future. They will not if they do not have an investment plan. Normally with cash the longer you leave it the more you get. This is how pensions work. In the Trusts case the longer you leave it the less you get. I was hoping to hear of a plan of action. It seems there is no plan which does not come as much of a surprise as nothing has been said.
The case will have some economic gain if you accept the theory that the club will not stay in the championship and grow naturally or ever return to the Premier league. It assumes a fall down the leagues and struggles like in the period 1983 -2002. This is a defeatist attitude. It assumes that the US owners are incompetent and would never invest their own money. The last few seasons has discounted this theory with investments and small profit reported.
The remaining sellers did well. They took their money out of a very high risk enterprise put the club in safer hands to football people with deeper pockets and reinvested in their pensions or other growing enterprises. They also maintained a holding in a potentially fast growing club. This hows faith in the club. Spreading risk is always wise.
If the SCST sta on good terms with the majority shareholders a decline in the club fortunes there would be an opportunity to reinvest. Leave in acrimonious terms means there will be no chance to reinvest. The clubs in big trouble like Portsmouth Bolton and Sunderland were very badly run with lavish spending and debts. Swansea is not run in this way.
If the SCST come back in 20 years their holding will be £7m in today's cash terms based on UK inflation target. With their reputation as a litigous group they will not find local partners with that meagre sum. Not being up for sale in 2015-2016 was a calamatous error by the past regime. They may as well repair bridges and wait to get another chance in the next few years and work out how they can invest outside football. Property for instance. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Trust statement on 00:26 - Jun 19 with 1344 views | Gwyn737 |
| Trust statement on 00:03 - Jun 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The statement in my opinion is not correct. It was probably an error and had not been checked.
The SCST and the QC can make comments that the action will not affect the 'club'.
They mean it will not affect the club directly and the bills will be sent to Swansea city LLC
(Delaware).
It will affect the club indirectly however as SCFC Delaware will tell Winter to recover the costs from SCFC (Wales) over time to cover any loses. With all big wages gone, cut backs, player sales, and increased ticket prices can generate profits. Profits allow dividends. My use of the word 'indirectly' did not indicate illegal activity.
Most fans perhaps even members do not accept it is a divorce and many talk hopefully of an out of court settlement. I believe they areover optimistic. I do not believe members would vote to leave the club entirely for potentially decades if given the choice.
I am testing the claim that the SCST will have a substantial "nest egg" for the future. They will not if they do not have an investment plan. Normally with cash the longer you leave it the more you get. This is how pensions work. In the Trusts case the longer you leave it the less you get. I was hoping to hear of a plan of action. It seems there is no plan which does not come as much of a surprise as nothing has been said.
The case will have some economic gain if you accept the theory that the club will not stay in the championship and grow naturally or ever return to the Premier league. It assumes a fall down the leagues and struggles like in the period 1983 -2002. This is a defeatist attitude. It assumes that the US owners are incompetent and would never invest their own money. The last few seasons has discounted this theory with investments and small profit reported.
The remaining sellers did well. They took their money out of a very high risk enterprise put the club in safer hands to football people with deeper pockets and reinvested in their pensions or other growing enterprises. They also maintained a holding in a potentially fast growing club. This hows faith in the club. Spreading risk is always wise.
If the SCST sta on good terms with the majority shareholders a decline in the club fortunes there would be an opportunity to reinvest. Leave in acrimonious terms means there will be no chance to reinvest. The clubs in big trouble like Portsmouth Bolton and Sunderland were very badly run with lavish spending and debts. Swansea is not run in this way.
If the SCST come back in 20 years their holding will be £7m in today's cash terms based on UK inflation target. With their reputation as a litigous group they will not find local partners with that meagre sum. Not being up for sale in 2015-2016 was a calamatous error by the past regime. They may as well repair bridges and wait to get another chance in the next few years and work out how they can invest outside football. Property for instance. |
Difficult to have an investment plan until you know how much you have invest. | | | |
| Trust statement on 03:35 - Jun 19 with 1314 views | Dr_Parnassus |
I see ‘the one that should not be named’ is standing for re-election again. I had a feeling that would be the case now that things seem to be moving, I was actually going to make that prediction on here last week and kicking myself I didn’t now. 
When the going gets tough due to his ridiculously incompetent decisions he steps down and allows the rest to take the heat and deal with the aftermath, yet when he thinks there may be some credit to be taken he jumps back in immediately.
Absolutely shameless stuff and one of the reasons I simply cannot get behind the Trust. The old guard will always be waiting in the wings to step into the limelight despite clearly being nowhere near good enough for the job. It’s actually becoming incredibly embarrassing.
I make no apologies for that view. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 08:18 - Jun 19 with 1265 views | pikeypaul |
| Trust statement on 22:45 - Jun 13 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
Shame on the Trust board members who advised members against legal action the first time round and decided to "trust" those same people who (allegedly) screwed them over in the first place. Those of us who knew this was the only option the first time around are vindicated.
Let's hope Jenkins et al lose a lot of sleep over this in the coming months before losing a lot of money once it's over.
Also, let's hope national media outlets pick this up as it infuriates me how Jenkins et al still largely retain a positive image both locally and nationally. |
100%
I wonder how Uxbridge is feeling now, and the people he was desperately trying to protect for whatever reason are losing a bit of sleep. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 08:25 - Jun 19 with 1262 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 00:03 - Jun 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The statement in my opinion is not correct. It was probably an error and had not been checked.
The SCST and the QC can make comments that the action will not affect the 'club'.
They mean it will not affect the club directly and the bills will be sent to Swansea city LLC
(Delaware).
It will affect the club indirectly however as SCFC Delaware will tell Winter to recover the costs from SCFC (Wales) over time to cover any loses. With all big wages gone, cut backs, player sales, and increased ticket prices can generate profits. Profits allow dividends. My use of the word 'indirectly' did not indicate illegal activity.
Most fans perhaps even members do not accept it is a divorce and many talk hopefully of an out of court settlement. I believe they areover optimistic. I do not believe members would vote to leave the club entirely for potentially decades if given the choice.
I am testing the claim that the SCST will have a substantial "nest egg" for the future. They will not if they do not have an investment plan. Normally with cash the longer you leave it the more you get. This is how pensions work. In the Trusts case the longer you leave it the less you get. I was hoping to hear of a plan of action. It seems there is no plan which does not come as much of a surprise as nothing has been said.
The case will have some economic gain if you accept the theory that the club will not stay in the championship and grow naturally or ever return to the Premier league. It assumes a fall down the leagues and struggles like in the period 1983 -2002. This is a defeatist attitude. It assumes that the US owners are incompetent and would never invest their own money. The last few seasons has discounted this theory with investments and small profit reported.
The remaining sellers did well. They took their money out of a very high risk enterprise put the club in safer hands to football people with deeper pockets and reinvested in their pensions or other growing enterprises. They also maintained a holding in a potentially fast growing club. This hows faith in the club. Spreading risk is always wise.
If the SCST sta on good terms with the majority shareholders a decline in the club fortunes there would be an opportunity to reinvest. Leave in acrimonious terms means there will be no chance to reinvest. The clubs in big trouble like Portsmouth Bolton and Sunderland were very badly run with lavish spending and debts. Swansea is not run in this way.
If the SCST come back in 20 years their holding will be £7m in today's cash terms based on UK inflation target. With their reputation as a litigous group they will not find local partners with that meagre sum. Not being up for sale in 2015-2016 was a calamatous error by the past regime. They may as well repair bridges and wait to get another chance in the next few years and work out how they can invest outside football. Property for instance. |
- ah well it's been explained to you at length why it isn't correct. If you still cannot understand, well that's down to you.
- yes they can and have.
- yes that's correct (as well as the sellers who are also being summoned).
- this has been addressed. Counter productive and impractical for them to do this to recover the type of money involved unless they want us in league 1 when they'll never get their initial outlay back.
- got no opinion on that. A nothing comment apart from that the members knew what they were voting for.
- ok assume there is no plan, as I say, do not worry about it, I'm not sure why you are? It's of no concern to you anyway. We haven't even got to court yet.
- this has been done to death too. You're completely ignoring the reality of the situation. We are in the championship with no parachute money. Our chances of getting to the premier league are diminishing. The chances of then finding a buyer for the trust's share alone are also slim. What investments exactly? A loan with 5% interest you mean?
- ah right so it's ok for them to cash out but not the trust!? And you say you aren't biased. Unbelievable.it probably shows desperation to sell more than anything.
- well blame that on the Americans. In their last public interview (when we were riding high) they stated an intention to re-engage with the trust regarding the clubs ownership. It doesn't look like that's happened so they lied. Not exactly the way to garner good will with a fellow shareholder whom you've also colluded to screw over in the past.
- what about the Americans reputation as a litigious group then? Remember they took the council to court and lost! How was it a calamatous error? That would have meant selling to Moore's and Noell whom the trust didn't think were suitable for the club. How is it a calamatous error not to sell to someone like that (if of course you actually care for the club)? How do you know their holding will be £7mill!? You do realise you stating things as fact when they patently aren't! Come on we've been through this. The trust as unpaid board members don't have the time or the funds to build up a property portfolio. That money they currently have would soon diminish to nothing. They'd have to hire a property manager or something. Fantasy ridiculous suggestion again.
Throughout this latest monologue of yours you'd think there'd be a modicum of common sense or reality. I was wrong. [Post edited 19 Jun 2021 8:31]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 08:31 - Jun 19 with 1258 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Trust statement on 08:18 - Jun 19 by pikeypaul |
100%
I wonder how Uxbridge is feeling now, and the people he was desperately trying to protect for whatever reason are losing a bit of sleep. |
One of the main reasons those people now coming back is a complete farce.
You can't have someone leading the Trust through the legal era who did everything in his power to steer the Trust away from the legal route.
The sad thing is, many people have very short memories and have no doubt the Trust is about to become a closed shop of incompetence again, and when challenged on it will either silence you or trot out the excuse that free time is at a premium, which is zero excuse for anyone volunteering for a position now. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 09:35 - Jun 19 with 1232 views | BillyChong |
| Trust statement on 00:03 - Jun 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The statement in my opinion is not correct. It was probably an error and had not been checked.
The SCST and the QC can make comments that the action will not affect the 'club'.
They mean it will not affect the club directly and the bills will be sent to Swansea city LLC
(Delaware).
It will affect the club indirectly however as SCFC Delaware will tell Winter to recover the costs from SCFC (Wales) over time to cover any loses. With all big wages gone, cut backs, player sales, and increased ticket prices can generate profits. Profits allow dividends. My use of the word 'indirectly' did not indicate illegal activity.
Most fans perhaps even members do not accept it is a divorce and many talk hopefully of an out of court settlement. I believe they areover optimistic. I do not believe members would vote to leave the club entirely for potentially decades if given the choice.
I am testing the claim that the SCST will have a substantial "nest egg" for the future. They will not if they do not have an investment plan. Normally with cash the longer you leave it the more you get. This is how pensions work. In the Trusts case the longer you leave it the less you get. I was hoping to hear of a plan of action. It seems there is no plan which does not come as much of a surprise as nothing has been said.
The case will have some economic gain if you accept the theory that the club will not stay in the championship and grow naturally or ever return to the Premier league. It assumes a fall down the leagues and struggles like in the period 1983 -2002. This is a defeatist attitude. It assumes that the US owners are incompetent and would never invest their own money. The last few seasons has discounted this theory with investments and small profit reported.
The remaining sellers did well. They took their money out of a very high risk enterprise put the club in safer hands to football people with deeper pockets and reinvested in their pensions or other growing enterprises. They also maintained a holding in a potentially fast growing club. This hows faith in the club. Spreading risk is always wise.
If the SCST sta on good terms with the majority shareholders a decline in the club fortunes there would be an opportunity to reinvest. Leave in acrimonious terms means there will be no chance to reinvest. The clubs in big trouble like Portsmouth Bolton and Sunderland were very badly run with lavish spending and debts. Swansea is not run in this way.
If the SCST come back in 20 years their holding will be £7m in today's cash terms based on UK inflation target. With their reputation as a litigous group they will not find local partners with that meagre sum. Not being up for sale in 2015-2016 was a calamatous error by the past regime. They may as well repair bridges and wait to get another chance in the next few years and work out how they can invest outside football. Property for instance. |
This investment plan has you keep on about, why? You’ve got no idea of their plans. It’s a pointless side tracking method to take the attention off the good case the trust have.
Regards to the trust stepping in at some point down the line, have you not watched the propaganda movie your sellout chums produced? Maybe they can send you a few clips alongside the script you follow for them on here.
Americans in sport have no idea of the cradle to the grave concept which relates to U.K. football fans. A club is a business to them, there’s no emotional attachment whatsoever. If they want to head off they will without a second thought. This is where we need the trust. | | | |
| Trust statement on 09:54 - Jun 19 with 1205 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 22:28 - Jun 18 by max936 |
Like swimming against the first spring tide of the year, apparently there's intelligent people posting on this forum........ |
Apparently.
Some very opinionated one too.
Who is right.
Only one way to find oiut | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
