| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" 22:42 - Dec 14 with 28687 views | Chiswickjack4 |
Another home game, another banner in the East Stand with a message to the Americans.
I very much hope the club take their time on deciding on new/additional investment.
The value of our club is going to go through the roof once the new TV deal is announced in March... |  | | |  |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:06 - Dec 16 with 1762 views | C_jack |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 17:59 - Dec 16 by Darran |
Out of curiosity how did all this American interest start?
Did we as a club contact them?
Did individual share holders contact them?
Or
Did they contact us?
The reason I ask is because Huw seemed to be saying at the London forum that he couldn't understand what Americans could get out of investing in Swansea City. (or is that wrong?) |
It's not just American parties, we've been in talks with people all over the world about ways to bring in revenue streams to the club, as is the case with the majority of clubs in the PL. |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 18:14 - Dec 16 with 1739 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 15:07 - Dec 16 by ToInfinityandBeyond |
This cannot be said enough
THE PURCHASE OF SHARES IS NOT AN INVESTMENT IN THE CLUB IT IS THE PRECISE OPPOSITE
- The higher the price of the shares the more multi millions the purchasers will have to pay to the shareholder
- The more multi millions that the purchasers put into the shareholders pockets the more multi millions they will need to take out of the club (not put in) just to break even
- To make it worth their bother they will want to take many times their initial purchase payment out of our club even though the club has not seen a penny of it
The club is only worth what people are prepared to pay for it, it will be the Trust’s acquiescence that will make it worth all these millions. That would be a nice present to the shareholders for what our club has achieved, but can we afford such generosity and gamble with the future of our club when they have already had much more than their initial investment back (and all the other wonderful things and benefits that have gone with being at the heart of this great ride). We fight with all our power and show our strength and the shares may be worth next to nothing, then …..
- No one will then have to pay millions for them to the current shareholders
- No one will then have to take those millions out of our clubs to recoup their “investment”
(which was made into the pockets of the current shareholders)
- Perhaps the Trust can then buy more shares at a reasonable price such as that paid to Mel from those that want to cash in — we can surely raise more funds
As far as if this is going ahead — no we need to be make it clear now we will do everything to stop it — nothing will put the potential Lotus Eaters off more than knowing they will have to deal ad infinitum with a vociferous Trust and Fans who will not roll over. The time to make a difference is not during a rubber stamping exercise to agree a done deal but now when we may actually influence the outcome and when people may withdraw before they have fully committed.
As far as the Trust going cap in hand to negotiate the best deal with the buyers, oh yes they will promise the earth to get what they want but with no real power given. The buyers would have the ability to potentially gain full control (and what else would their objective be) by generous continued buyout then share dilution until the Trust have no power whatsoever. We should show strength not weakness.
At the end of the day they will agree with anything they want to do and nothing they do not — their objective profit and the good of the club of course only whilst it does not conflict with their prime motivation. The law of diminishing marginal returns apply to what small difference we may make by putting massive new investment in — a loan that will have to be serviced even if it’s objective is not successful. Make no mistake this could be the green light into the serious demise of our club and certainly the values hitherto defended so strongly. Then again all may be well we may top the PL and win the Champions league and all live happily ever after — The End — but I find it surprising that those who so viciously oppose religion are willing to believe in fairy stories.
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old time is still a-flying;
And this same flower that smiles today
Tomorrow will be dying…………
If you believe we cannot make a difference then you are already defeated [Post edited 16 Dec 2014 15:12]
|
Great post Spratty (if that is indeed you - I'm finding it hard to keep up ;-) ) | | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:16 - Dec 16 with 1735 views | londonlisa2001 |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 17:59 - Dec 16 by Darran |
Out of curiosity how did all this American interest start?
Did we as a club contact them?
Did individual share holders contact them?
Or
Did they contact us?
The reason I ask is because Huw seemed to be saying at the London forum that he couldn't understand what Americans could get out of investing in Swansea City. (or is that wrong?) |
did he really say that?
In which case, that is very worrying indeed. If he doesn't know what their plans are, then how can he possibly judge if it's in the best interests of the club? | | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:17 - Dec 16 with 1733 views | londonlisa2001 |
BTW - since no one appears to have remarked on this aspect - what a clever bit of punning in the first place !! | | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:27 - Dec 16 with 1712 views | jackonicko |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:16 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
did he really say that?
In which case, that is very worrying indeed. If he doesn't know what their plans are, then how can he possibly judge if it's in the best interests of the club? |
He sort of said this.
He said that he had had various meetings with the americans and had asked them about the reasons behind why they would are proposing the deal. It was then more of an aside where he mused that he couldn't quite see what was "in it for them" as a return on their investment.
I actually took some comfort from the fact that HJ was thinking along these lines. I also believe the lack of an obvious answer to this question is one of the reasons why HJ is only 50/50 it will happen. |  | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:28 - Dec 16 with 1705 views | MattG |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 15:10 - Dec 16 by Uxbridge |
Christ, if that's the best example of criticism they've had then I rather think my point has been proven.
You may be struggling with the notion, but I suggest everyone adjusts rather quickly. Any share sale will likely be done because it is in the seller's interests. All we can hope is that caveats are put in place to ensure the Trust and long-term future of the club. Putting faith in the principles of capitalism isn't particularly wise IMO. |
Not necessarily the best, just the most obvious :wink: and, to be honest, my original question was very much tongue-in-cheek.
In terms of "the notion", around the time when you made that post, I put my view that a regular but sustainable dividend payment seemed to me a reasonable price to pay in order to keep the current Shareholders happy and to perhaps dissuade them from looking to sell their individual stake.
Don't misunderstand; I'm 100% on board with the fact that a straightforward sale of shares does NOT equal investment into the Club but will admit that I do find it a bit difficult to accept that at least some of those people who put their money where their mouth was back when we really needed it are now willing to potentially sell us back up the river in exchange for a massive and frankly obscene one-off return on that original investment rather than enjoying a not insignificant regular six-figure dividend.
I'm hoping there's a lot more to this whole episode than currently meets the eye and I do take some heart from what HJ said at the London Forum. However, I think the most appropriate stance to take at this point is to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. |  | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:31 - Dec 16 with 1698 views | Darran |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:16 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
did he really say that?
In which case, that is very worrying indeed. If he doesn't know what their plans are, then how can he possibly judge if it's in the best interests of the club? |
Well that's the way I understood it anyway.
Anyone? |  |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:45 - Dec 16 with 1681 views | londonlisa2001 |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:27 - Dec 16 by jackonicko |
He sort of said this.
He said that he had had various meetings with the americans and had asked them about the reasons behind why they would are proposing the deal. It was then more of an aside where he mused that he couldn't quite see what was "in it for them" as a return on their investment.
I actually took some comfort from the fact that HJ was thinking along these lines. I also believe the lack of an obvious answer to this question is one of the reasons why HJ is only 50/50 it will happen. |
OK - well sometimes you have to be there to read between the lines I guess, although again, if it's not obvious what's in it for them, then let's hope it becomes obvious before any decisions are made. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:48 - Dec 16 with 1673 views | Darran |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:45 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
OK - well sometimes you have to be there to read between the lines I guess, although again, if it's not obvious what's in it for them, then let's hope it becomes obvious before any decisions are made. |
Its an interesting one which most on here have seemed to have missed though that doesn't surprise me. | |
| |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:56 - Dec 16 with 1659 views | londonlisa2001 |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:48 - Dec 16 by Darran |
Its an interesting one which most on here have seemed to have missed though that doesn't surprise me. |
I think it's a very good point to draw to the attention of those of us that couldn't attend Darran. I admit I had missed it in the earlier summaries from Jacko etc. and it is pretty interesting. | | | |
| (No subject) on 19:13 - Dec 16 with 1630 views | jackonicko |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:56 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
I think it's a very good point to draw to the attention of those of us that couldn't attend Darran. I admit I had missed it in the earlier summaries from Jacko etc. and it is pretty interesting. |
It's an important point - and to be fair I think we've been round the houses on that discussion in terms of what's in it for them? Why are they investing?
Admittedly, much of the focus has been on the fact they will want a return on their investment. However, the reasons for them doing the deal may well be wider than just yield.
These guys are sports fans. Admittedly, terrible sports (as all american sports are  ). They put a fair chunk of change into the SD Padres at a time when it was an ailing franchise. They turned it around, held onto it for quite a few years, and then sold it on quite profitably. In other words, the kind of PE model that Shaky was talking about earlier in the thread.
Maybe they like being involved in sports. They are not getting any younger and this deal is pocket change to them. Maybe they think they can repeat the Padres deal with the Swans?
Of course, as we know, it's not quite as easy to do that with a football club over here as it is with a US franchise. Football is littered with failed examples.
However, what's in it for them may not be as direct as the results on a profit and loss account. They may see some synergies with what they have done and/or own state side. They may also see that soccer is going to become the #1 US sport in the medium term, and see the Swans as a relatively cheap way of getting exposure to that. The NBC TV deal is testament to the increasing level of interest over there - hell, we had one resident new yorker and one swansea expat now living in NYC at the trust forum in London.
Add to that baseball is a deathly dull sport to watch, the risk of injury in american football is putting people off entering the game, and increasing levels of immigration from countries where 'soccer' is the main interest. Maybe they think they can build the brand over there?
Oh, and a new Premier League TV deal to come, as a shorter-term deal sweetener.
But Lisa is right. Understanding the 'why' of the deal is just as important as the 'what'. [Post edited 16 Dec 2014 19:15]
| | | |
| (No subject) on 19:49 - Dec 16 with 1586 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 19:13 - Dec 16 by jackonicko |
It's an important point - and to be fair I think we've been round the houses on that discussion in terms of what's in it for them? Why are they investing?
Admittedly, much of the focus has been on the fact they will want a return on their investment. However, the reasons for them doing the deal may well be wider than just yield.
These guys are sports fans. Admittedly, terrible sports (as all american sports are ). They put a fair chunk of change into the SD Padres at a time when it was an ailing franchise. They turned it around, held onto it for quite a few years, and then sold it on quite profitably. In other words, the kind of PE model that Shaky was talking about earlier in the thread.
Maybe they like being involved in sports. They are not getting any younger and this deal is pocket change to them. Maybe they think they can repeat the Padres deal with the Swans?
Of course, as we know, it's not quite as easy to do that with a football club over here as it is with a US franchise. Football is littered with failed examples.
However, what's in it for them may not be as direct as the results on a profit and loss account. They may see some synergies with what they have done and/or own state side. They may also see that soccer is going to become the #1 US sport in the medium term, and see the Swans as a relatively cheap way of getting exposure to that. The NBC TV deal is testament to the increasing level of interest over there - hell, we had one resident new yorker and one swansea expat now living in NYC at the trust forum in London.
Add to that baseball is a deathly dull sport to watch, the risk of injury in american football is putting people off entering the game, and increasing levels of immigration from countries where 'soccer' is the main interest. Maybe they think they can build the brand over there?
Oh, and a new Premier League TV deal to come, as a shorter-term deal sweetener.
But Lisa is right. Understanding the 'why' of the deal is just as important as the 'what'. [Post edited 16 Dec 2014 19:15]
|
Lisa is wrong as usual.
Maybe the Americans are involved in a sinister conspiracy to subvert the club on behalf of Tan.
Maybe they were involved in a sinister conspiracy to subvert the club but then fell madly in love with the spirit of the place and now desperately want to proceed for all the right reasons.
Or maybe they don't really know, in the same way you are not able to find any particular reason why on a particular night you go to restaurant abc rather than xyz liking both of them almost equally.
It is all irrelevant. All that matters is what they intend to do and what contractual commitments they are prepared to back that up with at this point of time.
Speculating intricately on their past motivations for getting into the current position is just an exercise in mental masturbation. |  |
| |
| (No subject) on 19:51 - Dec 16 with 1582 views | Shaky |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 18:27 - Dec 16 by jackonicko |
He sort of said this.
He said that he had had various meetings with the americans and had asked them about the reasons behind why they would are proposing the deal. It was then more of an aside where he mused that he couldn't quite see what was "in it for them" as a return on their investment.
I actually took some comfort from the fact that HJ was thinking along these lines. I also believe the lack of an obvious answer to this question is one of the reasons why HJ is only 50/50 it will happen. |
One reason for his reticence may be that if the Americans come in there is practically no chance he will get to keep his dual CEO/Chairman appointment.
No chance. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 19:53 - Dec 16 with 1580 views | jackonicko |
| (No subject) on 19:49 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Lisa is wrong as usual.
Maybe the Americans are involved in a sinister conspiracy to subvert the club on behalf of Tan.
Maybe they were involved in a sinister conspiracy to subvert the club but then fell madly in love with the spirit of the place and now desperately want to proceed for all the right reasons.
Or maybe they don't really know, in the same way you are not able to find any particular reason why on a particular night you go to restaurant abc rather than xyz liking both of them almost equally.
It is all irrelevant. All that matters is what they intend to do and what contractual commitments they are prepared to back that up with at this point of time.
Speculating intricately on their past motivations for getting into the current position is just an exercise in mental masturbation. |
Why do you say their motivations for getting involved are irrelevant?
No one is saying that the contractual commitments aren't important - indeed, they are more important - but their motivations for doing the deal seem pretty relevant to me. | | | |
| (No subject) on 19:58 - Dec 16 with 1570 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 19:53 - Dec 16 by jackonicko |
Why do you say their motivations for getting involved are irrelevant?
No one is saying that the contractual commitments aren't important - indeed, they are more important - but their motivations for doing the deal seem pretty relevant to me. |
Because they are unknowable.
Edit: And because they may have changed or morphed. All that matters is the future. [Post edited 16 Dec 2014 19:59]
| |
| |
| (No subject) on 20:03 - Dec 16 with 1556 views | Shaky |
The belief that past motivations are hugely important to interpreting future events, and by coincidence prophecy is also a form of historicism.
If you want a comprehensive demolition of that read Karl Popper's The Poverty of Historicism | |
| |
| (No subject) on 20:56 - Dec 16 with 1512 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 19:49 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Lisa is wrong as usual.
Maybe the Americans are involved in a sinister conspiracy to subvert the club on behalf of Tan.
Maybe they were involved in a sinister conspiracy to subvert the club but then fell madly in love with the spirit of the place and now desperately want to proceed for all the right reasons.
Or maybe they don't really know, in the same way you are not able to find any particular reason why on a particular night you go to restaurant abc rather than xyz liking both of them almost equally.
It is all irrelevant. All that matters is what they intend to do and what contractual commitments they are prepared to back that up with at this point of time.
Speculating intricately on their past motivations for getting into the current position is just an exercise in mental masturbation. |
you really do have the comprehension abilities of a potato don't you.
All I said, if you wind your neck in, is that if Huw Jenkins doesn't know how they can make a return then he can't judge whether it's in the best interest of the club which people are relying on him to be able to do.
I said nothing more - the rest of it you've made up as per usual. Yes - all that matters is what they intend to do and what contractual commitments they are prepared to back up. The fact that the CEO and a major shareholder of the club doesn't know what these contractual commitments are is a concern for anyone that actually gives a crap.
In much the same way as directors of any company will tend to know what the details of an offer are before they decide whether or not to recommend it to their shareholders (as you would know if you actually had an ounce of experience in anything at all other than bullsh*t).
Now why don't you leave this to the grown ups and go and look up exactly what a preference shareholder can do if his coupon is unpaid and compare and contrast that to what a debt holder can do if his interest is unpaid.
Tosser. | | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 21:00 - Dec 16 with 1497 views | Phil_S |
Have you sent him his Christmas card yet Lisa? |  | | |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 21:11 - Dec 16 with 1472 views | londonlisa2001 |
| "MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 21:00 - Dec 16 by Phil_S |
Have you sent him his Christmas card yet Lisa? |
he's number one on my list Phil :-) | | | |
| (No subject) on 21:27 - Dec 16 with 1437 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 20:56 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
you really do have the comprehension abilities of a potato don't you.
All I said, if you wind your neck in, is that if Huw Jenkins doesn't know how they can make a return then he can't judge whether it's in the best interest of the club which people are relying on him to be able to do.
I said nothing more - the rest of it you've made up as per usual. Yes - all that matters is what they intend to do and what contractual commitments they are prepared to back up. The fact that the CEO and a major shareholder of the club doesn't know what these contractual commitments are is a concern for anyone that actually gives a crap.
In much the same way as directors of any company will tend to know what the details of an offer are before they decide whether or not to recommend it to their shareholders (as you would know if you actually had an ounce of experience in anything at all other than bullsh*t).
Now why don't you leave this to the grown ups and go and look up exactly what a preference shareholder can do if his coupon is unpaid and compare and contrast that to what a debt holder can do if his interest is unpaid.
Tosser. |
Sorry Lisa, I am not really that interested in what you have to say, didn't read you earlier post, and went purely by the way Noclue reported it.
I see now your objection is related to Jenkins supposed deep concern for how the Mercuns are going to make a return on their investment.
Why should he care two hoots about thaT? | |
| |
| (No subject) on 21:32 - Dec 16 with 1427 views | Darran |
| (No subject) on 21:27 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
Sorry Lisa, I am not really that interested in what you have to say, didn't read you earlier post, and went purely by the way Noclue reported it.
I see now your objection is related to Jenkins supposed deep concern for how the Mercuns are going to make a return on their investment.
Why should he care two hoots about thaT? |
Am I the only one that's f*cked off with this bollox? | |
| |
| (No subject) on 21:42 - Dec 16 with 1411 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 20:56 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
you really do have the comprehension abilities of a potato don't you.
All I said, if you wind your neck in, is that if Huw Jenkins doesn't know how they can make a return then he can't judge whether it's in the best interest of the club which people are relying on him to be able to do.
I said nothing more - the rest of it you've made up as per usual. Yes - all that matters is what they intend to do and what contractual commitments they are prepared to back up. The fact that the CEO and a major shareholder of the club doesn't know what these contractual commitments are is a concern for anyone that actually gives a crap.
In much the same way as directors of any company will tend to know what the details of an offer are before they decide whether or not to recommend it to their shareholders (as you would know if you actually had an ounce of experience in anything at all other than bullsh*t).
Now why don't you leave this to the grown ups and go and look up exactly what a preference shareholder can do if his coupon is unpaid and compare and contrast that to what a debt holder can do if his interest is unpaid.
Tosser. |
OK, I clenched by buttocks and read a bit further.
If you want to evaluate a takeover offer you look at the tender price if it is a cash offer, whereas with a paper offer (an exchange of shares) you need to evaluate not only the exchange ratio but also the future prospect for the prospectively merged company.
Here we are talking about a cash offer. No need to worry your no doubt pretty little head about whether the poor Mercuns are going to be able to scrape a return on the valuation they are offering.
As we say in the City, that's their f*cking problem. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 21:44 - Dec 16 with 1401 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 21:32 - Dec 16 by Darran |
Am I the only one that's f*cked off with this bollox? |
I am hugely p*ssed off with it Darran to be honest.
Anyone that knows me knows that I am about the most easy going person there is. But I am becoming really angry about important topics being derailed by someone who gives a fraction of no sh*t about the club talking complete and utter crap all the time in order to try to make himself out to be important and knowledgeable when virtually everything he says is just wrong or simplistic.
I'm getting to the point of saying bollox to it all to be frank - what happens happens and people will get what they deserve. If people want to chase the dream then let them. But for people like T2C who have spent ages going on about people being misguided - he may want to take a look at what his mate is trying to do on here. | | | |
| (No subject) on 21:45 - Dec 16 with 1396 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) on 21:44 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001 |
I am hugely p*ssed off with it Darran to be honest.
Anyone that knows me knows that I am about the most easy going person there is. But I am becoming really angry about important topics being derailed by someone who gives a fraction of no sh*t about the club talking complete and utter crap all the time in order to try to make himself out to be important and knowledgeable when virtually everything he says is just wrong or simplistic.
I'm getting to the point of saying bollox to it all to be frank - what happens happens and people will get what they deserve. If people want to chase the dream then let them. But for people like T2C who have spent ages going on about people being misguided - he may want to take a look at what his mate is trying to do on here. |
CYA. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 21:47 - Dec 16 with 1385 views | londonlisa2001 |
| (No subject) on 21:45 - Dec 16 by Shaky |
CYA. |
well one place you won't see me is at the Liberty will you Shaky because you've never set foot in the place. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
