| Trust statement 20:05 - Jun 13 with 36790 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 10:15 - Jun 14 with 1601 views | KeithHaynes |
| Trust statement on 10:13 - Jun 14 by 3swan |
Why the word donate? I would have no problem with the Trust loaning the money on the same terms as other loans provided by other shareholders |
Beautiful response, top corner., |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 10:16 - Jun 14 with 1593 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 10:07 - Jun 14 by Badlands |
Is that £5 million the Trust will donate to improving the squad, club and ir facikities? |
Is the club allowed to accept "donations' to use for improving playing squads under FFP rules then? |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 10:25 - Jun 14 with 1569 views | jasper_T |
| Trust statement on 10:16 - Jun 14 by Chief |
Is the club allowed to accept "donations' to use for improving playing squads under FFP rules then? |
Yeah, FFP rules allow owners to put up to £13m in per season in the Championship to cover losses. |  | | |
| Trust statement on 10:26 - Jun 14 with 1567 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 10:25 - Jun 14 by jasper_T |
Yeah, FFP rules allow owners to put up to £13m in per season in the Championship to cover losses. |
To cover losses, but not to invest in the playing squad? | |
| |
| Trust statement on 10:28 - Jun 14 with 1561 views | jasper_T |
| Trust statement on 10:26 - Jun 14 by Chief |
To cover losses, but not to invest in the playing squad? |
Doesn't matter how the losses are incurred. | | | |
| Trust statement on 10:38 - Jun 14 with 1541 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 10:28 - Jun 14 by jasper_T |
Doesn't matter how the losses are incurred. |
Would it be better to say that it doesn't matter how the money being put in is spent? | |
| |
| Trust statement on 10:49 - Jun 14 with 1519 views | Thornburyswan |
| Trust statement on 23:33 - Jun 13 by Dr_Parnassus |
Agree and disagree there.
Agree regarding the vote. The Trust recommendation and the subsequent voting structure absolutely ensured that instead of a democratic vote being reached, they increased the power of their own individual vote to reflect their own personal wishes and sway the outcome towards that. It was truly horrendous to witness and one of the darkest hours in the Trusts history. Against all sensible thought and advice they were trying to ensure they wouldn’t go the legal route and treated the membership with utter contempt.
I am amazed the Americans pulled out of what was such a one sided deal for them. It really was throwing the trust in exchange for the keys to their house, car and wife and them clamouring over hot coals to take it. It was as bizarre as it was tragic.
As for Jenkins, I don’t know how anyone can be anything other than grateful. The question you have to ask yourself is:-
“Would I take back his reign due to how it ended?”.
So that’s the 7 years in the Premier League, that’s the major trophy, the European run, the back to back top 10 finishes, Wembley promotion, the Swansea style with the likes of Martinez, Britton, Rodgers, state of the art facilities... and instead have our future be lower league cloggers with the likes of Steve Watkin being our marquee signing.
If your answer is no, as I would imagine most people’s would - then he’s done far more good for the club than bad. Far more. For that I can only be grateful.
His crime, if you can call it that, was realising he had taken the club as far as he could and after 10+ years of service wanted to take his money out of the club, secure his families future and live his life. He has hardly left us in peril, the Americans have been decent custodians apart from the odd commercial decision over footballing (Bradley and Arriola spring to mind).
We have just had 2 back to back Championship play off finishes, something that would have been seen as a great achievement even in the Martinez/Sousa era. We are essentially in a much better place now than when he took over but with a lifetime of memories. There aren’t many chairmen in football that can lay claim to that.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Good summary that Dr P only bits I’d add in terms of ‘old regime/owners’ errors were :-
1. Seemingly excluding the Trust from a proper sale negotiation - suspect that was through fear that if they objected the Americans would walk away.
2. Poor last couple of transfer windows in charge in the Prem - both in terms of fees & wages.
That said they had a truly exceptional run for 9/10 years so absolutely no need for some of the vilification they get.
As far as the court case goes I’d be for letting sleeping dogs lie as we could do without the distraction & further fan debate but suspect the Trust has expended too much time & money now to just draw a line under it - if they do win & sell their 21% for circa £10M after costs hope they have a decent Investment plan in mind in case that rainy day comes along. [Post edited 14 Jun 2021 10:53]
| | | |
| Trust statement on 11:04 - Jun 14 with 1503 views | jasper_T |
| Trust statement on 10:38 - Jun 14 by Chief |
Would it be better to say that it doesn't matter how the money being put in is spent? |
Kind of but technically FFP rules refer to losses per year not money spent. Players are assets and accounts losses from player investment comes through amortisation (depreciation) of their contracts. We could spend £30m up front on a new player and that might only represent a £10m loss every year if he's on a 3 year deal. If that was the only bit of overspending FFP is fine with an owner covering £10m/season even though a £30m lump sum is more than £13m annual allowance.
So technically it does sort of matter how it's being spent, but owners can absolutely give their club money to invest in players etc. if they have the will and FFP is designed to allow a certain amount of that (which clubs like Stoke have surely massively exceeded). | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust statement on 11:08 - Jun 14 with 1495 views | Dr_Winston |
| Trust statement on 10:49 - Jun 14 by Thornburyswan |
Good summary that Dr P only bits I’d add in terms of ‘old regime/owners’ errors were :-
1. Seemingly excluding the Trust from a proper sale negotiation - suspect that was through fear that if they objected the Americans would walk away.
2. Poor last couple of transfer windows in charge in the Prem - both in terms of fees & wages.
That said they had a truly exceptional run for 9/10 years so absolutely no need for some of the vilification they get.
As far as the court case goes I’d be for letting sleeping dogs lie as we could do without the distraction & further fan debate but suspect the Trust has expended too much time & money now to just draw a line under it - if they do win & sell their 21% for circa £10M after costs hope they have a decent Investment plan in mind in case that rainy day comes along. [Post edited 14 Jun 2021 10:53]
|
They conspired to throw the club and its supporters under the bus to personally enrich themselves. They obviously couldn't have cared less who they sold to as long as they trousered enough. They could have made a lot of money, still protected the club and gone out as heroes. They purposely chose not to do so.
No need for some of the vilification they get? On the contrary. They deserve every bit of it and more. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| Trust statement on 11:18 - Jun 14 with 1488 views | KeithHaynes |
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 👠| |
| |
| Trust statement on 11:26 - Jun 14 with 1481 views | waynekerr55 |
It really didn't have to be like this. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 11:36 - Jun 14 with 1471 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 11:08 - Jun 14 by Dr_Winston |
They conspired to throw the club and its supporters under the bus to personally enrich themselves. They obviously couldn't have cared less who they sold to as long as they trousered enough. They could have made a lot of money, still protected the club and gone out as heroes. They purposely chose not to do so.
No need for some of the vilification they get? On the contrary. They deserve every bit of it and more. |
This is blatently untrue.
"They obviously couldn't have cared less who they sold to as long as they trousered enough".
Why is it untrue?
a) Two of the sellers still have multi pound holding in the club. They have not tried to sell their share because they believe in the clubs majority owners.
b) A third seller is still associated with the club with the sucessfull womens team.
c) The three local sellers are all fans of the club and want the best for the club and always have .
d) Some of the sellers own local businesses and do not want their reputations damaged.
e) Unlike Burnley and some other teams the buyers did not burden the club with debts and loans to be paid off from the club's money.
f) The US owners have performed well keeping the team competetive and debts low lending multimillions to help the club through Covid.
g) The US owners have good reputation is US sport. Mr Silverstein is even seen as an ethical investor. They have always been "up front" with the fans.
h) The US owners are not asset strippers as projected. The reverse. They have put money into the club.
i) The single US actress has probably invested more money in the club than the SCST. Probably 5 times as much I suspect.
[Post edited 14 Jun 2021 11:42]
|  |
| |
| Trust statement on 11:38 - Jun 14 with 1467 views | monmouth |
| Trust statement on 10:13 - Jun 14 by 3swan |
Why the word donate? I would have no problem with the Trust loaning the money on the same terms as other loans provided by other shareholders |
Sweet
No, beautiful. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 11:44 - Jun 14 with 1459 views | monmouth |
| Trust statement on 11:36 - Jun 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is blatently untrue.
"They obviously couldn't have cared less who they sold to as long as they trousered enough".
Why is it untrue?
a) Two of the sellers still have multi pound holding in the club. They have not tried to sell their share because they believe in the clubs majority owners.
b) A third seller is still associated with the club with the sucessfull womens team.
c) The three local sellers are all fans of the club and want the best for the club and always have .
d) Some of the sellers own local businesses and do not want their reputations damaged.
e) Unlike Burnley and some other teams the buyers did not burden the club with debts and loans to be paid off from the club's money.
f) The US owners have performed well keeping the team competetive and debts low lending multimillions to help the club through Covid.
g) The US owners have good reputation is US sport. Mr Silverstein is even seen as an ethical investor. They have always been "up front" with the fans.
h) The US owners are not asset strippers as projected. The reverse. They have put money into the club.
i) The single US actress has probably invested more money in the club than the SCST. Probably 5 times as much I suspect.
[Post edited 14 Jun 2021 11:42]
|
You repel me. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:01 - Jun 14 with 1442 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 11:44 - Jun 14 by monmouth |
You repel me. |
Mindy Kallin has invested probably 5 times as much as the 1000 strong Swansea supporters Trust over the last 20 years. Gut wrenching but true. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:10 - Jun 14 with 1435 views | BillyChong |
| Trust statement on 10:07 - Jun 14 by Badlands |
Is that £5 million the Trust will donate to improving the squad, club and ir facikities? |
How would this be possible if the club shun the trust from most discussions? | | | |
| Trust statement on 12:19 - Jun 14 with 1427 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust statement on 11:36 - Jun 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is blatently untrue.
"They obviously couldn't have cared less who they sold to as long as they trousered enough".
Why is it untrue?
a) Two of the sellers still have multi pound holding in the club. They have not tried to sell their share because they believe in the clubs majority owners.
b) A third seller is still associated with the club with the sucessfull womens team.
c) The three local sellers are all fans of the club and want the best for the club and always have .
d) Some of the sellers own local businesses and do not want their reputations damaged.
e) Unlike Burnley and some other teams the buyers did not burden the club with debts and loans to be paid off from the club's money.
f) The US owners have performed well keeping the team competetive and debts low lending multimillions to help the club through Covid.
g) The US owners have good reputation is US sport. Mr Silverstein is even seen as an ethical investor. They have always been "up front" with the fans.
h) The US owners are not asset strippers as projected. The reverse. They have put money into the club.
i) The single US actress has probably invested more money in the club than the SCST. Probably 5 times as much I suspect.
[Post edited 14 Jun 2021 11:42]
|
On your first point, why did Jenkins sign off false boars minutes? Breaking corporate governance was as "he cared" about the club, yeah? [Post edited 14 Jun 2021 12:23]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:20 - Jun 14 with 1426 views | Thornburyswan |
| Trust statement on 11:08 - Jun 14 by Dr_Winston |
They conspired to throw the club and its supporters under the bus to personally enrich themselves. They obviously couldn't have cared less who they sold to as long as they trousered enough. They could have made a lot of money, still protected the club and gone out as heroes. They purposely chose not to do so.
No need for some of the vilification they get? On the contrary. They deserve every bit of it and more. |
Not for me Dr but everyone is entitled to their opinion so we’ll have to agree to disagree. | | | |
| Trust statement on 12:27 - Jun 14 with 1419 views | waynekerr55 |
| Trust statement on 12:20 - Jun 14 by Thornburyswan |
Not for me Dr but everyone is entitled to their opinion so we’ll have to agree to disagree. |
I think that's a fair response. I don't think anyone would have had any qualms of them walking away. The truth will come out and we can then draw our own conclusions from that | |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:37 - Jun 14 with 1406 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 12:01 - Jun 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Mindy Kallin has invested probably 5 times as much as the 1000 strong Swansea supporters Trust over the last 20 years. Gut wrenching but true. |
Wow wow hold on now.
Let's be clear here now:
Mindy Kalling bought some shares of the sellouts. She hasn't invested anything into the football club.
This disinformation / conflation won't work. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:55 - Jun 14 with 1384 views | 3swan |
| Trust statement on 12:01 - Jun 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Mindy Kallin has invested probably 5 times as much as the 1000 strong Swansea supporters Trust over the last 20 years. Gut wrenching but true. |
Let's not go down that route.. When the Trust members raised their money it was when the club was in a very poor state and to save the club The latest investors put their money into a Premier club as an investment. | | | |
| Trust statement on 12:56 - Jun 14 with 1383 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 12:37 - Jun 14 by Chief |
Wow wow hold on now.
Let's be clear here now:
Mindy Kalling bought some shares of the sellouts. She hasn't invested anything into the football club.
This disinformation / conflation won't work. |
Mandi has invested money buying club shares in 2016. Estimated at about £1m. The SCST bought club shares for £200k in 2002. Mandi has invested 5 times as much in club shares as the SCST and took out much less in dividends. This is just a fact.
THe SCST net contributtion to the club is around MINUS £400K-600k over the years as they took dividends back in 2014 or so. Their holding is too big so they cannot invest. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:01 - Jun 14 with 1361 views | onehunglow |
Note how almost all the posts are past tense. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:03 - Jun 14 with 1364 views | 3swan |
| Trust statement on 12:56 - Jun 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Mandi has invested money buying club shares in 2016. Estimated at about £1m. The SCST bought club shares for £200k in 2002. Mandi has invested 5 times as much in club shares as the SCST and took out much less in dividends. This is just a fact.
THe SCST net contributtion to the club is around MINUS £400K-600k over the years as they took dividends back in 2014 or so. Their holding is too big so they cannot invest. |
Come on there are two sides to every story but to say she has taken less in dividends is stretching the fact that.no dividends have been paid out. Yes the Trust have over the years had good dividend payments but that can be said about the old owners who also had payments that covered their initial input. | | | |
| Trust statement on 13:03 - Jun 14 with 1710 views | monmouth |
| Trust statement on 12:56 - Jun 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Mandi has invested money buying club shares in 2016. Estimated at about £1m. The SCST bought club shares for £200k in 2002. Mandi has invested 5 times as much in club shares as the SCST and took out much less in dividends. This is just a fact.
THe SCST net contributtion to the club is around MINUS £400K-600k over the years as they took dividends back in 2014 or so. Their holding is too big so they cannot invest. |
How much did fat Dineen invest compared to Mindi? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
