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.
I think Crix makes a good point above. Also, if I was in a big shareholders position, it wouldn't only be the prospect of mega cash, but also distancing my middle aged self from all the hassle of a large turnover organisation.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 16:39 - Apr 10 with 1590 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:29 - Apr 10 by NeiltheTaylor
If they're putting £100M they will expect at least £200M out. I doubt that even with our abortion of a commercial department sorted out that can be found without extracting the easy money from the PL payouts. These people are hardly football people who know the business inside out.
Maybe our new academy facilities will be sold to a new company who can rent them back to us at a nice profitable rate for the owners too.
Some rich pickings to be had for the more ruthless assett stripper with no real emotional connection to the football club
As soon as the trust shares have been diluted to complete irrelevance, I'm sure we'll find out how much value can be extracted.
[Post edited 10 Apr 2016 14:31]
Could they really strip the assets and the profit from the club without destroying their investment?
The only way they'll get a return is if the club stays in the PL and becomes more successful, both on and off the pitch. If they want to sell the club on in a few years, they'll have to make it more valuable than it is now.
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 17:55 - Apr 10 with 1543 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 16:39 - Apr 10 by somersetsimon
Could they really strip the assets and the profit from the club without destroying their investment?
The only way they'll get a return is if the club stays in the PL and becomes more successful, both on and off the pitch. If they want to sell the club on in a few years, they'll have to make it more valuable than it is now.
'Based on what we know'.... i.e. questionably conducted negotiations with dubious motives, a suspiciously crafted publicity piece in a local rag filled with sweet talk but little in the way of any real detail, and the set precedent of ripping the heart from a football club as told from a fan with first hand experience.... Then it's a definite 'BAD' from me at the moment. In fact I'm struggling to understand the arguments to the contrary, personally. It seems to revolve around us 'needing investment to continue to compete, see' which I dont completely believe, but is, incidentally, a convenient claim for a person looking to justify their decision to sell
[Post edited 10 Apr 2016 18:11]
4
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 18:14 - Apr 10 with 1509 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 18:14 - Apr 10 by A_Fans_Dad
Have you actually done any research, because it does not appear to be quite so cut & dried as some posters have made out. I still voted No though.
No not really yet ,but this defo worries me ason Levien is the anti-christ.
I'm a former long-term DC United (DCU) season ticket holder. He is solely interested in his wallet to the detriment of the supporters. For DCU, Levien used the supporters to help get the local government to partially fund the building of a new stadium. Afterwards, when he no longer needed this help, he made heavy-handed changes to hurt the supporter groups.
He (and his investors) will sell DCU after the stadium is built - think of it as a MLS Flip (in the US, real estate investors, flip houses - which is buying a distressed property, throw on a coat of paint, make cheap upgrades, and resell the house for profit). In order to cut costs for the existing club, Levien destroyed the front office by replacing competent leaders with unpaid interns or under-qualified people. DCU FO (front office) is a joke. Things such as tickets or updates to their sites, is bereft with errors, omissions or slow service.
The DCU supporter groups and the front office had collaboratively worked together (prior to the Levien regime), for example, to make the stewards act responsibly to the fans (fans had their legs broken, were being slapped and fights were occurring with CSC (security). Now, the relationship is fractured and will never be fixed (perhaps when Levien and his gang of thieves sell). DCU has lost their history - because the FO has been replaced and the fans that know the past are being frustrated by the ineptness of the DCU FO. Hundreds and thousands of fans are not coming back.
As the Walmart of MLS, DCU doesn't just have a cut-rate FO, their team isn't fully funded and is cut-rate too. In 2013, DCU was the worst team in MLS, they won 3 games in the entire MLS season (a MLS dubious record). Now, they did win the US Open Cup (akin to the FA cup). Both the General Manager, Dave Kaspar (in the US, this is the person responsible for player acquisition) and the Manager Ben Olsen were retained. This would be like Aston Villa keeping their technical staff through this year and next year.
I can understand the Swansea owners wanting to cash in on their investment - but the guys (Dineen and Morgan) that I met at the British Embassy (for the Jack to a King showing) seemed to care for Swansea more than selling to this snake-oil salesman. So, selling some of your shares seem inevitable as others have pointed out in this thread. But selling to Jason Levien (The anti-christ) is a huge mistake. I hope this doesn't come to fruition. I would hate to have 2 teams that I deeply care about be destroyed - picked apart by the same vulture.
Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 18:07 - Apr 10 by BLAZE
'Based on what we know'.... i.e. questionably conducted negotiations with dubious motives, a suspiciously crafted publicity piece in a local rag filled with sweet talk but little in the way of any real detail, and the set precedent of ripping the heart from a football club as told from a fan with first hand experience.... Then it's a definite 'BAD' from me at the moment. In fact I'm struggling to understand the arguments to the contrary, personally. It seems to revolve around us 'needing investment to continue to compete, see' which I dont completely believe, but is, incidentally, a convenient claim for a person looking to justify their decision to sell
[Post edited 10 Apr 2016 18:11]
That's why I voted no. Any further information will be coloured by what has gone before, and based on what we know now, it's a carve up.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 18:17 - Apr 10 by Oldjack
No not really yet ,but this defo worries me ason Levien is the anti-christ.
I'm a former long-term DC United (DCU) season ticket holder. He is solely interested in his wallet to the detriment of the supporters. For DCU, Levien used the supporters to help get the local government to partially fund the building of a new stadium. Afterwards, when he no longer needed this help, he made heavy-handed changes to hurt the supporter groups.
He (and his investors) will sell DCU after the stadium is built - think of it as a MLS Flip (in the US, real estate investors, flip houses - which is buying a distressed property, throw on a coat of paint, make cheap upgrades, and resell the house for profit). In order to cut costs for the existing club, Levien destroyed the front office by replacing competent leaders with unpaid interns or under-qualified people. DCU FO (front office) is a joke. Things such as tickets or updates to their sites, is bereft with errors, omissions or slow service.
The DCU supporter groups and the front office had collaboratively worked together (prior to the Levien regime), for example, to make the stewards act responsibly to the fans (fans had their legs broken, were being slapped and fights were occurring with CSC (security). Now, the relationship is fractured and will never be fixed (perhaps when Levien and his gang of thieves sell). DCU has lost their history - because the FO has been replaced and the fans that know the past are being frustrated by the ineptness of the DCU FO. Hundreds and thousands of fans are not coming back.
As the Walmart of MLS, DCU doesn't just have a cut-rate FO, their team isn't fully funded and is cut-rate too. In 2013, DCU was the worst team in MLS, they won 3 games in the entire MLS season (a MLS dubious record). Now, they did win the US Open Cup (akin to the FA cup). Both the General Manager, Dave Kaspar (in the US, this is the person responsible for player acquisition) and the Manager Ben Olsen were retained. This would be like Aston Villa keeping their technical staff through this year and next year.
I can understand the Swansea owners wanting to cash in on their investment - but the guys (Dineen and Morgan) that I met at the British Embassy (for the Jack to a King showing) seemed to care for Swansea more than selling to this snake-oil salesman. So, selling some of your shares seem inevitable as others have pointed out in this thread. But selling to Jason Levien (The anti-christ) is a huge mistake. I hope this doesn't come to fruition. I would hate to have 2 teams that I deeply care about be destroyed - picked apart by the same vulture.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 18:07 - Apr 10 by BLAZE
'Based on what we know'.... i.e. questionably conducted negotiations with dubious motives, a suspiciously crafted publicity piece in a local rag filled with sweet talk but little in the way of any real detail, and the set precedent of ripping the heart from a football club as told from a fan with first hand experience.... Then it's a definite 'BAD' from me at the moment. In fact I'm struggling to understand the arguments to the contrary, personally. It seems to revolve around us 'needing investment to continue to compete, see' which I dont completely believe, but is, incidentally, a convenient claim for a person looking to justify their decision to sell
[Post edited 10 Apr 2016 18:11]
Basically where I stand at the moment.
I have yet to see a single compelling reason for the club needing outside investment. Indeed, the reason most often given (buying the stadium) simply isn't necessary at all for me.
And the way that certain people seem to have gone about their business lately leaves a nasty taste.
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.
3
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 19:17 - Apr 10 with 1372 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 14:42 - Apr 10 by Nookiejack
These Americans seem to have record of investing in distressed businesses / funded by distressed fund.
So why don't they invest in distressed club like Aston Villa, turn around that club and create value.
Rather than looking at our club with no debt and using our debt free assets to purchase their acquisition of our club - as that is what will happen as soon as they get control.
That second paragraph contains the easiest question to answer that I've heard in a long time.
People with profitable [read "non-distressed"] property do not normally sell cheaply enough to interest buyers who intend to "flip," who always look for enough residual value to make the "flip" profitable.
I understand that there has been interest in buying Villa.
In the Swansea situation, there's a ton of money coming in a very short time, which is tempting; and there is a stadium to buy and upgrade (on someone else's money) to make it profitable. That and the healthy economic situation here.
Finally, the property is clearly under-valued compared to the selling price because they're not buying "the club," but a controlling interest from people who want to clean up before the bubble bursts.
At the end of the day if some want too sell of their shares that's fine, and i'm sure they'll not leaves us in the shyte, they are Jb after all with the well being of club at heart ,We can only wait and see because there;s not much we can do about it ,or can we ?
Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
0
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 19:23 - Apr 10 with 1359 views
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 16:11 - Apr 10 by Nookiejack
If the Trust, Martin Morgan and Brian Katzen are against this then it seems there is a massive choice.
Also voting power would lie with shareholders who don't want to sell - so puts Directors who released announcement yesterday without approval of majority shareholders - in a precarious position - as assume they can be replaced if do not have confidence of majority shareholders.
Nookie, i don't believe that anyone has said that MM and BK are against it, just that apparently they were unaware of how far the negotiations had advanced until yesterday. If both were indeed against it, then there would be no deal as between them and the trust they hold 66% of the shares.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 19:21 - Apr 10 by Oldjack
At the end of the day if some want too sell of their shares that's fine, and i'm sure they'll not leaves us in the shyte, they are Jb after all with the well being of club at heart ,We can only wait and see because there;s not much we can do about it ,or can we ?
They're not just "selling their shares."
They're going to give a controlling interest in the club to two of a class not known to be beneficent in financial dealings.
Based on what we know, do you think the proposed deal is a good thing? on 19:21 - Apr 10 by Oldjack
At the end of the day if some want too sell of their shares that's fine, and i'm sure they'll not leaves us in the shyte, they are Jb after all with the well being of club at heart ,We can only wait and see because there;s not much we can do about it ,or can we ?
Thick as f*ck.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Based on what we know of the facts of any deal, I'd have to say undecided. But this is going to be hugely disruptive for the club at board level. It might be disruptive for years, if you look at the goings on with DC Uniteds stadium antics and the deal making around the Timberwolves and Grizzlies. For that reason I'm voting bad. Whenever has a football club done well when these sort of things have been going on in the boardroom? The only sort of deal we should be interested in is one which brings in tens of millions of NEW capital. Any deal that involves just the buyout of existing shares, or loading us with debt is unequivocally bad.
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!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
