| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS 18:36 - Aug 2 with 37308 views | castlejack |
13 players out, 3 players signed
Just heard Mawson deal now confirmed, and club seem content with £8m for Clueless.
This is so depressing,
Having worked in the City for many years, I knew these bustard yanks would asset strip us for years which started even before their first season as owners had started....
But this is bordering on ridiculous. The rate of pillage is speeding up and the vultures have now successfully left us with a SWAN CARCASS.
The parachute payments are only ever one click away as they disappear electronically across the Atlantic.
In the words of Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, when asked Why have you wrecked our company/club....
BECAUSE ITS WRECK-ABLE |  |
| |  |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 16:52 - Aug 3 with 2119 views | Uxbridge |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 16:37 - Aug 3 by Shaky |
i am not going to pretend to be an expert in the mechanics of these things, but I would have thought if you are making an argument in the High Court that you have been ripped off and unfairly prejudiced by the company, it rather dilutes the strength of that case if you then say but we'd still like to hang on to some of those shares cos we'd really like to keep an eye on things. |
Depends if the remedy is to give the Trust the opportunity that the other shareholders were afforded, and depends what the Trust wants (which would be dependent on the members). It could well be for a full sale. That's the usual result I understand.
We know the remedy is pretty much at the discretion of the judge ultimately. If successful, it could well be for a full sale. That's the usual result we know. All things are possible though, if the Trust wanted something slightly different. Long way away though. |  |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:05 - Aug 3 with 2088 views | Shaky |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 16:52 - Aug 3 by Uxbridge |
Depends if the remedy is to give the Trust the opportunity that the other shareholders were afforded, and depends what the Trust wants (which would be dependent on the members). It could well be for a full sale. That's the usual result I understand.
We know the remedy is pretty much at the discretion of the judge ultimately. If successful, it could well be for a full sale. That's the usual result we know. All things are possible though, if the Trust wanted something slightly different. Long way away though. |
Exactly. Because such proceedings are designed to fix situations where the relationship between shareholders has broken down.
But if you want to keep some of the shareholding it seems to me you are indirectly saying that relationship hasn't really broken down.
You want to have your cake and eat it. Not only does that sound risky to me legally, but i question the logic and certainly also the financial value. |  |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:12 - Aug 3 with 2065 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:05 - Aug 3 by Shaky |
Exactly. Because such proceedings are designed to fix situations where the relationship between shareholders has broken down.
But if you want to keep some of the shareholding it seems to me you are indirectly saying that relationship hasn't really broken down.
You want to have your cake and eat it. Not only does that sound risky to me legally, but i question the logic and certainly also the financial value. |
Shaky. You are confusing one person’s individual view (which may be shared by others) with the Trust’s position. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:14 - Aug 3 with 2050 views | Uxbridge |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:12 - Aug 3 by londonlisa2001 |
Shaky. You are confusing one person’s individual view (which may be shared by others) with the Trust’s position. |
And, for the record, it should be pointed out at no time in this thread have I actually said what the Trust's view, or even my own view, would be in terms of preferred remedy from mediation or legal action.
The discussion was about the merits or not of the Trust being involved in the running of the football club and the access the Trust currently enjoys. Nothing more. | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:26 - Aug 3 with 2002 views | Shaky |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:12 - Aug 3 by londonlisa2001 |
Shaky. You are confusing one person’s individual view (which may be shared by others) with the Trust’s position. |
Not really Lisa.
But as I mentioned earlier that fact that Phil's assurance about the Trust's ongoing role in shareholder surveillance gave me some cause for concern.
Hopefully he just hadn't thought things through properly, however. | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:28 - Aug 3 with 1994 views | Phil_S |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:26 - Aug 3 by Shaky |
Not really Lisa.
But as I mentioned earlier that fact that Phil's assurance about the Trust's ongoing role in shareholder surveillance gave me some cause for concern.
Hopefully he just hadn't thought things through properly, however. |
 |  | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:29 - Aug 3 with 1994 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:26 - Aug 3 by Shaky |
Not really Lisa.
But as I mentioned earlier that fact that Phil's assurance about the Trust's ongoing role in shareholder surveillance gave me some cause for concern.
Hopefully he just hadn't thought things through properly, however. |
Yeah, but that’s not the Trust view either. It’s an individual’s view.
I’ve argued long and hard about the need to recognise the difference between influence and just knowing stuff before others do.
But that’s just my individual view as well.
Edited to add: but I also reiterate Uxbridge’s point about there being a difference between saying something is useful at present and making it a red line in any negotiation and certainly in any legal proceedings. [Post edited 3 Aug 2018 17:31]
| | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:31 - Aug 3 with 1988 views | Phil_S |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:29 - Aug 3 by londonlisa2001 |
Yeah, but that’s not the Trust view either. It’s an individual’s view.
I’ve argued long and hard about the need to recognise the difference between influence and just knowing stuff before others do.
But that’s just my individual view as well.
Edited to add: but I also reiterate Uxbridge’s point about there being a difference between saying something is useful at present and making it a red line in any negotiation and certainly in any legal proceedings. [Post edited 3 Aug 2018 17:31]
|
You should also remember that what Phil said and what Shaky has read into what Phil said are different matters
I haven't actually given any opinion just stated facts…!
Serial fantasist although my favourite line was earlier when he admitted he is far from an expert despite claiming the opposite for the best past of 3 years | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:37 - Aug 3 with 1972 views | Shaky |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:31 - Aug 3 by Phil_S |
You should also remember that what Phil said and what Shaky has read into what Phil said are different matters
I haven't actually given any opinion just stated facts…!
Serial fantasist although my favourite line was earlier when he admitted he is far from an expert despite claiming the opposite for the best past of 3 years |
Claimed I was an expert in the mechanics of unfair prejudice actions?
Think you will find there is as much substance to that claim as there is to you. | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:38 - Aug 3 with 1969 views | Shaky |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:29 - Aug 3 by londonlisa2001 |
Yeah, but that’s not the Trust view either. It’s an individual’s view.
I’ve argued long and hard about the need to recognise the difference between influence and just knowing stuff before others do.
But that’s just my individual view as well.
Edited to add: but I also reiterate Uxbridge’s point about there being a difference between saying something is useful at present and making it a red line in any negotiation and certainly in any legal proceedings. [Post edited 3 Aug 2018 17:31]
|
Good for you. | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:39 - Aug 3 with 1964 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:38 - Aug 3 by Shaky |
Good for you. |
I have to admit I have no idea whether you’re being sarcastic or not.
 | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:41 - Aug 3 with 1962 views | Shaky |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 17:39 - Aug 3 by londonlisa2001 |
I have to admit I have no idea whether you’re being sarcastic or not.
|
Not. x | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:43 - Aug 3 with 1876 views | castlejack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 13:46 - Aug 3 by londonlisa2001 |
I can answer.
Yes, we see monthly P&L, cash flow, balance sheets. Forecasts for all (again monthly). Cash headroom actual and projections. Details of facilities available.
Also calculations of player movements P&L. Monthly KPIs on FFP measures.
Some limited commentary. But we ask questions where something isn’t explained.
The caveat is that we haven’t seen the full forecasts as yet for the new season given our relegation (or at least, I haven’t). Some elements yes, but not all. Partly, I suspect, as the players in / out situation is so up in the air.
On your last point. Not as timely as I’d like to be honest, although timely enough that we’d pick up on stuff pretty quickly. |
Thanks Lisa | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:53 - Aug 3 with 1863 views | BillyChong |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 13:37 - Aug 3 by londonlisa2001 |
Actually the first bit is not true.
Kaplan and Levien are now the majority shareholders of DC United with the bulk of the money coming from other investors who are in the Swans consortium. The MLS signed off their new ownership structure this week!
But to just move money from one company to another is not legally questionable, it’s illegal full stop.
However, there is nothing to stop Kaplan / Levien declaring a dividend from the Swans (note the caveat below though) to take cash from the club and then investing their portion of that cash in DC United.
Caveat - you are only allowed to declare a dividend out of distributable reserves. That effectively means retained profits. The club does not have substantial retained profits so the distribution would be limited. The other point, of course, is that any dividend declared out of the club would see 21% of that dividend go to the Trust.
The other way that it is possible, would be for the Swans to buy a player / players from DC United for a large valuation. The Trust could do nothing to stop this unless it could prove that the player was only being bought to move money around (which would be a fraud against the minority). The thing that helps the Trust here is that there possibly won’t be many players at DC United that could get a work permit to play in the UK. They could also pay fees to D.C. United for something or other but again, the Trust could act.
So there are ways for them to do it, but the Trust would know about it pretty quickly and could aim to take legal action if the value of their holding was adversely affected. |
My worry is the trust have already seen their holding adversely affected by the sellouts, and did nothing about it. So why would the yanks worry about facing legal action for any dodgy doings? | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:57 - Aug 3 with 1846 views | Badlands |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:53 - Aug 3 by BillyChong |
My worry is the trust have already seen their holding adversely affected by the sellouts, and did nothing about it. So why would the yanks worry about facing legal action for any dodgy doings? |
.... because it would impact on their other dealings in the USA and several shareholders interests word wide. |  |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:00 - Aug 3 with 1836 views | BillyChong |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 18:57 - Aug 3 by Badlands |
.... because it would impact on their other dealings in the USA and several shareholders interests word wide. |
Yes but someone would need initiate the actions first. Meditation a few years down the line probably doesn’t worry them much at all. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:04 - Aug 3 with 1813 views | Badlands |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:00 - Aug 3 by BillyChong |
Yes but someone would need initiate the actions first. Meditation a few years down the line probably doesn’t worry them much at all. |
Do you really believe they would risk putting themselves in a position where they would be unable to trade for a few ££££?
They have, and they deal with multi-million$ businesses, Swansea (and the little they could embezzel) represents a lot of money but no where near the portfolio that would collapse when they were found out. | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:17 - Aug 3 with 1790 views | Oldjack |
What's to stop them giving themselves massive pay rises ? |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:52 - Aug 3 with 1755 views | plasjack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:17 - Aug 3 by Oldjack |
What's to stop them giving themselves massive pay rises ? |
Not being a financial Know all, but it would show in the annual accounts, all being a year later. |  | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 20:02 - Aug 3 with 1741 views | Oldjack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 19:52 - Aug 3 by plasjack |
Not being a financial Know all, but it would show in the annual accounts, all being a year later. |
i know that ,but what's to stop them doing it ,and don't say the Trust | |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:18 - Aug 6 with 1590 views | castlejack |
On reviewing the swans latest a/cs to 31 July 2017, can see the asset strip in the yanks first full season as owners, using smoke and mirrors but accepted as accounting standards @ companies house.
Profit for the year £13 million
Note 3 to the accounts includes “Player Registration amortisation costs” £24 million
This is basically taking the value of our players on the books and writing down their value over circa 4 years when it would value them at zero (with no players in or out over 4 years)
Technically for their first year of ownership they made close to
£37 MILLION
This is without the sales of £60 MILLION that occurred after year end in August 2017 of Gylfi and Llorente which will not show up until published in July 2019.
Minimum asset strip to date £97 MILLION (the6 just haven’t taken it out yet)
They will no doubt take off another £20-30 million from the actual profit made in season 2017-18 for player amortisation costs, even though we continue to offload the majority of players at more than we paid for them.
Wakey wakey trust members, your not keeping your eyes on the ball (the artificial lowering of profit by offsetting a quarter of all players values against profit each year). Yes it’s a legitimate accounting adjustment , but will hide the true profit of the club for the nextfew years transition. | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:22 - Aug 6 with 1581 views | Shaky |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:18 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
On reviewing the swans latest a/cs to 31 July 2017, can see the asset strip in the yanks first full season as owners, using smoke and mirrors but accepted as accounting standards @ companies house.
Profit for the year £13 million
Note 3 to the accounts includes “Player Registration amortisation costs” £24 million
This is basically taking the value of our players on the books and writing down their value over circa 4 years when it would value them at zero (with no players in or out over 4 years)
Technically for their first year of ownership they made close to
£37 MILLION
This is without the sales of £60 MILLION that occurred after year end in August 2017 of Gylfi and Llorente which will not show up until published in July 2019.
Minimum asset strip to date £97 MILLION (the6 just haven’t taken it out yet)
They will no doubt take off another £20-30 million from the actual profit made in season 2017-18 for player amortisation costs, even though we continue to offload the majority of players at more than we paid for them.
Wakey wakey trust members, your not keeping your eyes on the ball (the artificial lowering of profit by offsetting a quarter of all players values against profit each year). Yes it’s a legitimate accounting adjustment , but will hide the true profit of the club for the nextfew years transition. |
You are an idiot. | |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:24 - Aug 6 with 1580 views | byron |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:18 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
On reviewing the swans latest a/cs to 31 July 2017, can see the asset strip in the yanks first full season as owners, using smoke and mirrors but accepted as accounting standards @ companies house.
Profit for the year £13 million
Note 3 to the accounts includes “Player Registration amortisation costs” £24 million
This is basically taking the value of our players on the books and writing down their value over circa 4 years when it would value them at zero (with no players in or out over 4 years)
Technically for their first year of ownership they made close to
£37 MILLION
This is without the sales of £60 MILLION that occurred after year end in August 2017 of Gylfi and Llorente which will not show up until published in July 2019.
Minimum asset strip to date £97 MILLION (the6 just haven’t taken it out yet)
They will no doubt take off another £20-30 million from the actual profit made in season 2017-18 for player amortisation costs, even though we continue to offload the majority of players at more than we paid for them.
Wakey wakey trust members, your not keeping your eyes on the ball (the artificial lowering of profit by offsetting a quarter of all players values against profit each year). Yes it’s a legitimate accounting adjustment , but will hide the true profit of the club for the nextfew years transition. |
Well I never, a hedge fund stripping an asset bare? Where is the resident angry valley’s commando to refute all this fake news eh? |  |
| |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:28 - Aug 6 with 1562 views | jasper_T |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:18 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
On reviewing the swans latest a/cs to 31 July 2017, can see the asset strip in the yanks first full season as owners, using smoke and mirrors but accepted as accounting standards @ companies house.
Profit for the year £13 million
Note 3 to the accounts includes “Player Registration amortisation costs” £24 million
This is basically taking the value of our players on the books and writing down their value over circa 4 years when it would value them at zero (with no players in or out over 4 years)
Technically for their first year of ownership they made close to
£37 MILLION
This is without the sales of £60 MILLION that occurred after year end in August 2017 of Gylfi and Llorente which will not show up until published in July 2019.
Minimum asset strip to date £97 MILLION (the6 just haven’t taken it out yet)
They will no doubt take off another £20-30 million from the actual profit made in season 2017-18 for player amortisation costs, even though we continue to offload the majority of players at more than we paid for them.
Wakey wakey trust members, your not keeping your eyes on the ball (the artificial lowering of profit by offsetting a quarter of all players values against profit each year). Yes it’s a legitimate accounting adjustment , but will hide the true profit of the club for the nextfew years transition. |
We've been making similar profits and small losses since long before the Americans arrived.
Football clubs should be run within their means. Profit isn't asset stripping. | | | |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:41 - Aug 6 with 1534 views | E20Jack |
| Asset strip away, strip away....Left with a SWAN CARCASS on 15:18 - Aug 6 by castlejack |
On reviewing the swans latest a/cs to 31 July 2017, can see the asset strip in the yanks first full season as owners, using smoke and mirrors but accepted as accounting standards @ companies house.
Profit for the year £13 million
Note 3 to the accounts includes “Player Registration amortisation costs” £24 million
This is basically taking the value of our players on the books and writing down their value over circa 4 years when it would value them at zero (with no players in or out over 4 years)
Technically for their first year of ownership they made close to
£37 MILLION
This is without the sales of £60 MILLION that occurred after year end in August 2017 of Gylfi and Llorente which will not show up until published in July 2019.
Minimum asset strip to date £97 MILLION (the6 just haven’t taken it out yet)
They will no doubt take off another £20-30 million from the actual profit made in season 2017-18 for player amortisation costs, even though we continue to offload the majority of players at more than we paid for them.
Wakey wakey trust members, your not keeping your eyes on the ball (the artificial lowering of profit by offsetting a quarter of all players values against profit each year). Yes it’s a legitimate accounting adjustment , but will hide the true profit of the club for the nextfew years transition. |
Just... wow |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
