| Jake Silverstein 19:10 - Aug 7 with 17414 views | Treforys_Jack |
So another shareholder, good news or not ? |  | | |  |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:08 - Aug 12 with 1929 views | thornabyswan |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:14 - Aug 11 by builthjack |
I wouldn't trust the 2 American owners, and I certainly wouldn't trust this Silver fella. Neither would I trust Birch. |
Not on about trust but we need cashflow money was tight and will now be even tighter.
But to call him money lending scum when we know nothing about him is harsh |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:31 - Aug 12 with 1898 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:08 - Aug 12 by thornabyswan |
Not on about trust but we need cashflow money was tight and will now be even tighter.
But to call him money lending scum when we know nothing about him is harsh |
Perhaps reflecting the feelings of the dear lord Jesus (other deities are available)
My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Or a term of endearment, like you daft bugger
Or perhaps just speculating like the Res Love 💗 often does. |  | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:21 - Aug 12 with 1872 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 15:24 - Aug 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
No it is different from other loans in one very particular way. That is the gentleman is joining the Board. This tells me clearly that the gentleman wants to make a commitment to the club over and beyond that of a simple loan. His words on the website seem to indicate this. Clearly he has some sort of understanding with the majority owners as to how things will develop in the future with respect to his ownership of risks. Clearly if the club is in desperate straits he can add clauses for his own benefit. These can be offset by the very hgh potential rewards of promotion in negiociation. The US owners are experienced business people. The existing owners have also given the club money and the BBC says they want to convert into equity. An apparent obstacle is getting an agreement with the minor shreholders which they do not currently have. I am anti legal action as it is ruinous to the cub and the LAST RESORT option. I did not say this the QC did. Last resorts are not to be taken lightly.
The whole issue of 'drag on' causes and 'tag on' clauses is somthing I have become aware of and is something owners must consider very carefully after advice. All the other shareholders appeared to find a mutually beneficial agreement. |
In making this loan the only commitment any of them has made is to be making a profit out of our club.
His words are probably nothing but a cleverly written script to deceive us.
The way you approach this, your strong support for the new 'investor' has no doubt got people thinking youy are no more than a stooge for the 'investors' who are charging interest on loans and making a profit.
How much interest are we paying by the way? Does anyone have a clue? Maybe, when we are one payment away from settling this loan then it'llbe converted into equity, the trusts shares will be diluted and the 'investors' will be sitting pretty. Cynical I know. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:44 - Aug 12 with 1860 views | jasper_T |
Americans will always be guilty until proven innocent (and not even then) with many in our fanbase. Maybe the one thing Bob Bradley got right. People are desperate for something to come out to confirm that they are definitely up to no good, rather than the boring idea that we're skint because of overspending on duff players in the PL and the resultant relegation.
Corruption and embezzlement by evil masterminds out to ruin our club is sexier. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:14 - Aug 12 with 1845 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:21 - Aug 12 by Catullus |
In making this loan the only commitment any of them has made is to be making a profit out of our club.
His words are probably nothing but a cleverly written script to deceive us.
The way you approach this, your strong support for the new 'investor' has no doubt got people thinking youy are no more than a stooge for the 'investors' who are charging interest on loans and making a profit.
How much interest are we paying by the way? Does anyone have a clue? Maybe, when we are one payment away from settling this loan then it'llbe converted into equity, the trusts shares will be diluted and the 'investors' will be sitting pretty. Cynical I know. |
I suspect without the loan / investment Mr Birch cannot balance the books given the shortfall in gate reciepts advertsing etc. With out the loan / investment the club could cease paying bills and soon after go bust. Mr Birch can enlighten us on this. The loan / investment therefore serves to give a value to the Trusts 21% shareholding. It seems very straight forward to me. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 13 with 1760 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:14 - Aug 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suspect without the loan / investment Mr Birch cannot balance the books given the shortfall in gate reciepts advertsing etc. With out the loan / investment the club could cease paying bills and soon after go bust. Mr Birch can enlighten us on this. The loan / investment therefore serves to give a value to the Trusts 21% shareholding. It seems very straight forward to me. |
Hang on, if there is a conversion to equity it will dilute the trusts shares, taking value away, not adding to it.
Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs which is definitely due to what our owners have done. However, they could have taken a loan from a bank and todays interest rates are very low.
Doesn't it strike you ar poor when a clubs owners are lending the club money? It's not looking after their property but simply making a profit out of it. After all there are, what, 20 or so other owners (in their hedge fund group) looking for a profit.
If...IF Silverstein converts this loan to equity then it's a different thing, until then the jury is out.
The thing that troubles me is the ownership model in modern football. Foreign owners often do not invest in the club but lend to it and make profit from it. There are exceptions of course but the club I always look at is Manchester United, the Glazers bought it and took out a massive loan to do so but the loan was taken out against MUFC assets and it cost the club 60 million per year in interest payments. Look at Wigan, taken over and a month later put into administration. I am wary and will remain so. Lets face it, even our homegrown owners sold us out for a large profit. The likes of Jack Walker are few and far between and getting rarer. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:09 - Aug 13 with 1755 views | Badlands |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 13 by Catullus |
Hang on, if there is a conversion to equity it will dilute the trusts shares, taking value away, not adding to it.
Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs which is definitely due to what our owners have done. However, they could have taken a loan from a bank and todays interest rates are very low.
Doesn't it strike you ar poor when a clubs owners are lending the club money? It's not looking after their property but simply making a profit out of it. After all there are, what, 20 or so other owners (in their hedge fund group) looking for a profit.
If...IF Silverstein converts this loan to equity then it's a different thing, until then the jury is out.
The thing that troubles me is the ownership model in modern football. Foreign owners often do not invest in the club but lend to it and make profit from it. There are exceptions of course but the club I always look at is Manchester United, the Glazers bought it and took out a massive loan to do so but the loan was taken out against MUFC assets and it cost the club 60 million per year in interest payments. Look at Wigan, taken over and a month later put into administration. I am wary and will remain so. Lets face it, even our homegrown owners sold us out for a large profit. The likes of Jack Walker are few and far between and getting rarer. |
Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs which is definitely due to what our owners have done. However, they could have taken a loan from a bank and todays interest rates are very low. Doesn't it strike you ar poor when a clubs owners are lending the club money?
Yes
Interest rates on Silverstein loan was reported as being similar to bank loan rates, but the could go away completely if shares are created to the value of the loan. Borrowing from the bank would mean all would have to be repaid in full. It may be he requests repayment or other parties could (somehow) prevent the creation of new shares.
Birch mentioned share creation as one possible way forward soon after his arrival.
I would imagine bank interest rates wouldn't be as low as imagined as we have very little in the way of permanent assets.
With regard to foreign owners lending money, so do home grown ones. Very few, even the very wealthy, would just hand over £millions.
Right or wrong, it's just the way it is. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:17 - Aug 13 with 1754 views | jasper_T |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 13 by Catullus |
Hang on, if there is a conversion to equity it will dilute the trusts shares, taking value away, not adding to it.
Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs which is definitely due to what our owners have done. However, they could have taken a loan from a bank and todays interest rates are very low.
Doesn't it strike you ar poor when a clubs owners are lending the club money? It's not looking after their property but simply making a profit out of it. After all there are, what, 20 or so other owners (in their hedge fund group) looking for a profit.
If...IF Silverstein converts this loan to equity then it's a different thing, until then the jury is out.
The thing that troubles me is the ownership model in modern football. Foreign owners often do not invest in the club but lend to it and make profit from it. There are exceptions of course but the club I always look at is Manchester United, the Glazers bought it and took out a massive loan to do so but the loan was taken out against MUFC assets and it cost the club 60 million per year in interest payments. Look at Wigan, taken over and a month later put into administration. I am wary and will remain so. Lets face it, even our homegrown owners sold us out for a large profit. The likes of Jack Walker are few and far between and getting rarer. |
Not sure it's as cheap and easy for Championship clubs to take out big bank loans as you think. The idea that banks making profit off borrowing is better/more moral is a bit wild, too. It only becomes sketchy if the club is borrowing loads of money it doesn't need from owners, and paying out the ear for the privilege. Or the Man Utd/Glazers example you mention where the borrowing itself is just straight up for their benefit and the club shoulders the costs.
Football is a mess, especially at this level. Derby County just secured a loan against the stadium they already sold to their owner, which is still under investigation. Not sure how that works tbh. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jake Silverstein on 12:28 - Aug 13 with 1742 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:09 - Aug 13 by Badlands |
Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs which is definitely due to what our owners have done. However, they could have taken a loan from a bank and todays interest rates are very low. Doesn't it strike you ar poor when a clubs owners are lending the club money?
Yes
Interest rates on Silverstein loan was reported as being similar to bank loan rates, but the could go away completely if shares are created to the value of the loan. Borrowing from the bank would mean all would have to be repaid in full. It may be he requests repayment or other parties could (somehow) prevent the creation of new shares.
Birch mentioned share creation as one possible way forward soon after his arrival.
I would imagine bank interest rates wouldn't be as low as imagined as we have very little in the way of permanent assets.
With regard to foreign owners lending money, so do home grown ones. Very few, even the very wealthy, would just hand over £millions.
Right or wrong, it's just the way it is. |
<< Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs >>
Not according to Trust Board members who made it clear before Brentford second leg in play offs that not getting promotion could bring with it seriously rocky roads as we are up the creek without a paddle financially. |  | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:09 - Aug 13 with 1723 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 11:46 - Aug 13 by Catullus |
Hang on, if there is a conversion to equity it will dilute the trusts shares, taking value away, not adding to it.
Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs which is definitely due to what our owners have done. However, they could have taken a loan from a bank and todays interest rates are very low.
Doesn't it strike you ar poor when a clubs owners are lending the club money? It's not looking after their property but simply making a profit out of it. After all there are, what, 20 or so other owners (in their hedge fund group) looking for a profit.
If...IF Silverstein converts this loan to equity then it's a different thing, until then the jury is out.
The thing that troubles me is the ownership model in modern football. Foreign owners often do not invest in the club but lend to it and make profit from it. There are exceptions of course but the club I always look at is Manchester United, the Glazers bought it and took out a massive loan to do so but the loan was taken out against MUFC assets and it cost the club 60 million per year in interest payments. Look at Wigan, taken over and a month later put into administration. I am wary and will remain so. Lets face it, even our homegrown owners sold us out for a large profit. The likes of Jack Walker are few and far between and getting rarer. |
Dilution of the Trusts holding is actually good for the club not bad. There can be no external 'investment' unless dilution occurs. It really does not matter much in reality. You are wrong to say it "takes away value". The value is unchanged. If anything it is improved as the risk of defaulting on loans is reduced.
Many on here are desperatly upset at the prospect of 'genuine investment' as they have been saying for years the US owners are 'asset stripping hedge funders' with no interest in the club itself. They wish to perpetuate a false narrative. Why would an asset stripper invest fresh capital? It does not make sense right?
Of course the US owners must deliver the goods and not ask for their loans back with interest. We shall see. The Americans have briefed the BBC and others they do not intend asking for the money to be repaid. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:46 - Aug 13 with 1703 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:09 - Aug 13 by Badlands |
Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs which is definitely due to what our owners have done. However, they could have taken a loan from a bank and todays interest rates are very low. Doesn't it strike you ar poor when a clubs owners are lending the club money?
Yes
Interest rates on Silverstein loan was reported as being similar to bank loan rates, but the could go away completely if shares are created to the value of the loan. Borrowing from the bank would mean all would have to be repaid in full. It may be he requests repayment or other parties could (somehow) prevent the creation of new shares.
Birch mentioned share creation as one possible way forward soon after his arrival.
I would imagine bank interest rates wouldn't be as low as imagined as we have very little in the way of permanent assets.
With regard to foreign owners lending money, so do home grown ones. Very few, even the very wealthy, would just hand over £millions.
Right or wrong, it's just the way it is. |
‘Interest rates on Silverstein loan was reported as being similar to bank loan rates’
Where was it reported, I saw it speculated. Could you provide a link please.
‘but they could go away completely if shares are created to the value of the loan’
Where are you getting this from, is their anything whatsoever to suggest the interest will be waived if the capital amount is converted into equity. Let alone the type of inducements that may have been written in to bring in the loan and encourage the new director to chose conversion to equity at a later date.
It was always known that a new share issues was one of the limited valid ways of bringing in investment. It was also understood the potential effects of diluting the Trust's shareholding.
It was also thought that the Trust could eventually be diluted to such a low % that they could be forcibly bought out of the club anyway. I know this was previously discussed at length but I think when I mentioned, this important area of dilution had been omitted from the issued 2nd consultation document (along with a few other issues). I think Lisa said this was not or no longer the case. I would like definitive information on that as it is an important issue.
If I understand correctly, because of their majority position, the majority owners may make a share issue on their own decision, so long as the minority share holders are offered first refusal to buy shares pro rata to maintain their % holding. I think there is little the minority shareholders can do to stop it. Whether that is advisable given the Trust are already pursuing a case for unfair prejudice, may be very questionable.
The best the sellouts and new majority shareholders can do is bite the bullet and get together to agree a plan to personally buyout the Trust. Given the most likely outcome of our adjudged strong case, is for them to have to do that. It won’t go well on them if they have failed to attempt to settle, let alone unilaterally pulling out of that very advantageous deal they agreed.
It is pretty obvious they are playing chicken and would make some derisory offer on the court steps which hopefully we would turn down, and so it goes on.
The sooner it is sorted the sooner we may all move forward with the confidence that our shares, (which otherwise would be potentially dwindling away with dilution and our funds going on ongoing legal action to try and defend our position as each new liberty is forced upon us, within this obviously toxic relationship) may provide a significant fund to protect the club in future, calculated on a pro rata basis, to the bung the sellouts personally pocketed on the back of our club. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:04 - Aug 13 with 1695 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 23:14 - Aug 12 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suspect without the loan / investment Mr Birch cannot balance the books given the shortfall in gate reciepts advertsing etc. With out the loan / investment the club could cease paying bills and soon after go bust. Mr Birch can enlighten us on this. The loan / investment therefore serves to give a value to the Trusts 21% shareholding. It seems very straight forward to me. |
I imagine Dorothy thought the yellow brick road very straight forward when she started out on it too.
It is interesting Badlands upvoted your post, given he recently said...
‘If they had wanted the £20 million they shouldn't have stated no sale at any cost when Jenkins was looking to bring in new owners. Had the trust, at that point been supportive of a sale more offers would have been made ... who wants to buy a club that they won't fully own?
Interestingly he supports what I repeatedly said, that if the sellouts had not used underhand methods and lied and cheated and ignored their legal responsibilities in order to trouser as much cash as possible. Then they may not have got a buyer at all, let alone for such windfall profits on the back of the club.
That was merely the situation. Sellouts had every right to sell their shares if they could, given the Trust as a sitting tenant, but no right at all to lie and cheat and ignore legal obligations to push through a sale that was detrimental to the Trust, in order to trouser windfall profits.
Let us also consider that the new majority owners have not invested or brought in a single penny of investment into the club.
If the new debt incurred by the club, in the form of loans does at some future date convert to equity with a new share issue, as it is said it, might, that will be the first investment. Their initial purchase was not an investment (despite its PR misrepresentation by the sellouts and their tame Journalist) as it went straight into the pockets of the sellouts, without the club seeing a penny
But in relation to your comments most pertinent is the end of that statement...
‘who wants to buy a club that they won't fully own?’
Of course some wag (or should that be welsh government) said Steve and Jason, and of course that is true. But no doubt they only did that because, although they were buying the shares off individual shareholders, the deal (thrashed out whilst colluding to keep the Trust - one of the largest shareholders - in the dark) ensured with a combination of the sellouts shares and the sellouts signing over the voting rights of their residual retained shareholdings, that the new majority owners effectively had total control. Undoubtedly a condition of the deal.
That total control, totally changed the power balance of the Club. Rendering the Trust effectively powerless against a single majority owner, and our shares effectively worthless.
So to Badlands comment..
‘who wants to buy a club that they won't fully own?’
I would point out...
Full ownership was never the aim, full control was. However achieved. And it seems our local heroes were willing to do anything to ensure they got their hands on their 30 pieces of silver.
I would add ...
Who would want to buy a substantial but powerless minority share holding.
The unfair prejudice and underhand behaviour, including cheating and lying and ignoring legal obligations has put us in a position where our shares are effectively worthless in terms of power or monetary value, regardless of what division we are in.
The point being that not only will the investment not inject value into the Trusts shares as you suggest, but also as Cat points out, any actual investment (if one is ever made under this owner) will only serve to dilute the Trust’s shareholding.
Of course none of this is new it was all foreseen and discussed in detail by a number of posters before the sale. Shakes particularly raising these issues. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:56 - Aug 13 with 1665 views | Catullus |
Lets not forget that somewhere in the past the trust had been trying to purchase more shares (or so I believe) to take their holding above 25% which would have given them gretaer legal protectins, and more power?
The then owners repeatedly foiled this in the knowledge that a shareholder with over 25% cannot be forced to sell up. Is it also right that an owner has to have over 75% of shares before they can issue any new shares?
I guess the only way we will know what has gone on is with hindsight, after they have done their tax return and it can be seen by the public. The reality is the owners need the club to be stable so they can make profit, if it went under they'd lose a fortune. That's probably why they are definitely here long term, it could take them a long time to make a profit because getting back into the EPL is a mountain to be climbed and look at Leeds, a bigger club than us and it took them 15 years, nothing is guaranteed. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 15:51 - Aug 13 with 1642 views | dobjack2 |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:09 - Aug 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Dilution of the Trusts holding is actually good for the club not bad. There can be no external 'investment' unless dilution occurs. It really does not matter much in reality. You are wrong to say it "takes away value". The value is unchanged. If anything it is improved as the risk of defaulting on loans is reduced.
Many on here are desperatly upset at the prospect of 'genuine investment' as they have been saying for years the US owners are 'asset stripping hedge funders' with no interest in the club itself. They wish to perpetuate a false narrative. Why would an asset stripper invest fresh capital? It does not make sense right?
Of course the US owners must deliver the goods and not ask for their loans back with interest. We shall see. The Americans have briefed the BBC and others they do not intend asking for the money to be repaid. |
Who do the trust represent - the fans
In your world screwing over the trust and consequently the fans is good for the club then? | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:01 - Aug 13 with 1640 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:04 - Aug 13 by chad |
I imagine Dorothy thought the yellow brick road very straight forward when she started out on it too.
It is interesting Badlands upvoted your post, given he recently said...
‘If they had wanted the £20 million they shouldn't have stated no sale at any cost when Jenkins was looking to bring in new owners. Had the trust, at that point been supportive of a sale more offers would have been made ... who wants to buy a club that they won't fully own?
Interestingly he supports what I repeatedly said, that if the sellouts had not used underhand methods and lied and cheated and ignored their legal responsibilities in order to trouser as much cash as possible. Then they may not have got a buyer at all, let alone for such windfall profits on the back of the club.
That was merely the situation. Sellouts had every right to sell their shares if they could, given the Trust as a sitting tenant, but no right at all to lie and cheat and ignore legal obligations to push through a sale that was detrimental to the Trust, in order to trouser windfall profits.
Let us also consider that the new majority owners have not invested or brought in a single penny of investment into the club.
If the new debt incurred by the club, in the form of loans does at some future date convert to equity with a new share issue, as it is said it, might, that will be the first investment. Their initial purchase was not an investment (despite its PR misrepresentation by the sellouts and their tame Journalist) as it went straight into the pockets of the sellouts, without the club seeing a penny
But in relation to your comments most pertinent is the end of that statement...
‘who wants to buy a club that they won't fully own?’
Of course some wag (or should that be welsh government) said Steve and Jason, and of course that is true. But no doubt they only did that because, although they were buying the shares off individual shareholders, the deal (thrashed out whilst colluding to keep the Trust - one of the largest shareholders - in the dark) ensured with a combination of the sellouts shares and the sellouts signing over the voting rights of their residual retained shareholdings, that the new majority owners effectively had total control. Undoubtedly a condition of the deal.
That total control, totally changed the power balance of the Club. Rendering the Trust effectively powerless against a single majority owner, and our shares effectively worthless.
So to Badlands comment..
‘who wants to buy a club that they won't fully own?’
I would point out...
Full ownership was never the aim, full control was. However achieved. And it seems our local heroes were willing to do anything to ensure they got their hands on their 30 pieces of silver.
I would add ...
Who would want to buy a substantial but powerless minority share holding.
The unfair prejudice and underhand behaviour, including cheating and lying and ignoring legal obligations has put us in a position where our shares are effectively worthless in terms of power or monetary value, regardless of what division we are in.
The point being that not only will the investment not inject value into the Trusts shares as you suggest, but also as Cat points out, any actual investment (if one is ever made under this owner) will only serve to dilute the Trust’s shareholding.
Of course none of this is new it was all foreseen and discussed in detail by a number of posters before the sale. Shakes particularly raising these issues. |
I am not a financial expert but this sounds like a good old fashioned misinformed whinge. It not likely to be corrected by the more sophisticated posters sadly. Dilution has no direct effect on the cash valuation of the Trust's holding. There could be some losses in value compared to 2016 if the club recovers its PL status but even then that probably would be covered by increases in TV revenues and matchday income. Many considered the £1m for 1% as bit of a snip at the time. It could be much more than that in the future. If Ayew has stuck that penalty away who knows.
Dillution is actually 'cashfree' investment. Increase the cash pot of the club without spending any cash. The currency the Trust might use in the absence of cash are shares. Naturally it will hold less shares if paying in shares. Mr Birch will check it is all equitably administered. The only effective way to avoid ownership obligations is to sell up. Thats life Im afraid. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:43 - Aug 13 with 1609 views | BillyChong |
| Jake Silverstein on 12:28 - Aug 13 by 34dfgdf54 |
<< Financially we were in a much better position than a lot of other clubs >>
Not according to Trust Board members who made it clear before Brentford second leg in play offs that not getting promotion could bring with it seriously rocky roads as we are up the creek without a paddle financially. |
Nor Cooper in his recent interview where he stated there is no money for transfer fees | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:22 - Aug 13 with 1570 views | chad |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:01 - Aug 13 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I am not a financial expert but this sounds like a good old fashioned misinformed whinge. It not likely to be corrected by the more sophisticated posters sadly. Dilution has no direct effect on the cash valuation of the Trust's holding. There could be some losses in value compared to 2016 if the club recovers its PL status but even then that probably would be covered by increases in TV revenues and matchday income. Many considered the £1m for 1% as bit of a snip at the time. It could be much more than that in the future. If Ayew has stuck that penalty away who knows.
Dillution is actually 'cashfree' investment. Increase the cash pot of the club without spending any cash. The currency the Trust might use in the absence of cash are shares. Naturally it will hold less shares if paying in shares. Mr Birch will check it is all equitably administered. The only effective way to avoid ownership obligations is to sell up. Thats life Im afraid. |
Uh uh Res Love
I can see sophistication might impress you.
As you correctly identify, you are wasting your time conversing with me. I am more Mini than Morgan.
Like the honest no nonsense opinion of experienced Counsel, in this particular field, who has placed his considerable reputation on stating we have a strong case for Unfair Prejudice,
Perhaps he was having a whinge too
So I am sure you will understand, I don’t mean to be rude, when I take his word over that of someone who, presents themselves as not understanding that a loan creates debt. (But strangely understands drag and tag, and seems to have got share dilution down ;)
But please if you actually think anything needs correcting, feel free to point it out. Unless you are just making stuff up again.
The test for unfairness is equally straightforward and not uncommon...
‘The courts will regard the prejudice as unfair if a hypothetical reasonable bystander would believe it to be unfair.’
And the remedy ...
in practice, the most common remedy awarded to a successful Petitioner is to order that their shares be purchased by those who caused the unfair prejudice.
My point being a simple one based on Badlands own comment
The loan / investment (where it ever to materialise) does not serve to give a value to the Trusts 21% shareholding as you assert,
The shares are only worth what anyone is prepared to pay for them.
Who would want to buy a substantial but powerless minority share holding
The unfair prejudice has put us in a position where our shares are effectively worthless in terms of power or monetary value, regardless of what division we are in. They are trapped shares.
The dilution (if the investment is ever made) will only serve to reduce our % shareholding. The value of course will not change as it is effectively 0.
As for your comment ‘The only effective way to avoid ownership obligations is to sell up. Thats life Im afraid’
I agree - I refer you to the remedy for unfair prejudice above.
Hope that is clear enough and straightforward enough for you.
As for the litany of evidenced actions by the respondents, that put us into this position, creating the strong case for unfair prejudice, don’t bother your head, I am sure our legal team has it all down. | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:38 - Aug 13 with 1544 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:22 - Aug 13 by chad |
Uh uh Res Love
I can see sophistication might impress you.
As you correctly identify, you are wasting your time conversing with me. I am more Mini than Morgan.
Like the honest no nonsense opinion of experienced Counsel, in this particular field, who has placed his considerable reputation on stating we have a strong case for Unfair Prejudice,
Perhaps he was having a whinge too
So I am sure you will understand, I don’t mean to be rude, when I take his word over that of someone who, presents themselves as not understanding that a loan creates debt. (But strangely understands drag and tag, and seems to have got share dilution down ;)
But please if you actually think anything needs correcting, feel free to point it out. Unless you are just making stuff up again.
The test for unfairness is equally straightforward and not uncommon...
‘The courts will regard the prejudice as unfair if a hypothetical reasonable bystander would believe it to be unfair.’
And the remedy ...
in practice, the most common remedy awarded to a successful Petitioner is to order that their shares be purchased by those who caused the unfair prejudice.
My point being a simple one based on Badlands own comment
The loan / investment (where it ever to materialise) does not serve to give a value to the Trusts 21% shareholding as you assert,
The shares are only worth what anyone is prepared to pay for them.
Who would want to buy a substantial but powerless minority share holding
The unfair prejudice has put us in a position where our shares are effectively worthless in terms of power or monetary value, regardless of what division we are in. They are trapped shares.
The dilution (if the investment is ever made) will only serve to reduce our % shareholding. The value of course will not change as it is effectively 0.
As for your comment ‘The only effective way to avoid ownership obligations is to sell up. Thats life Im afraid’
I agree - I refer you to the remedy for unfair prejudice above.
Hope that is clear enough and straightforward enough for you.
As for the litany of evidenced actions by the respondents, that put us into this position, creating the strong case for unfair prejudice, don’t bother your head, I am sure our legal team has it all down. |
It’s Trampie not the Res |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:43 - Aug 13 with 1539 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:38 - Aug 13 by Brynmill_Jack |
It’s Trampie not the Res |
It’s neither. Definitely not trampie at least. |  |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:09 - Aug 13 with 1515 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Jake Silverstein on 20:43 - Aug 13 by exiledclaseboy |
It’s neither. Definitely not trampie at least. |
Assumed it was Res !! | | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 22:02 - Aug 13 with 1488 views | chad |
Ha no idea just messing with the name
Wouldn’t have thought skip, but could be totally wrong
Deffo getting a few undertones of the Res even though masked and the political affiliation would certainly fit post modernist! Res.
Also his love of Shakes turned to hate (2 sides of the same coin) and he seemed to get a bit more shirty after me praising Shakes. [Post edited 13 Aug 2020 22:07]
| | | |
| Jake Silverstein on 13:58 - Aug 14 with 1407 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 16:43 - Aug 13 by BillyChong |
Nor Cooper in his recent interview where he stated there is no money for transfer fees |
Being in a better position than other clubs doesn't mean we are in a great position, just not in as bad a place as clubs like Wigan!
According to what's been said we have relatively little debt and decent cash reserves which is much better than several other clubs.
Though if we have decent cash reserves why was this loan so necessary? Something doesn't ring true. | |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:35 - Aug 14 with 1362 views | Dr_Winston |
We don't have cash reserves. We were in the position where another player departure or two would have been needed to get us properly level this summer before Covid hit. Probably need at least the two now.
However, we are in a much better position than we might have been had we not worked so hard to clear the decks of high earners and saleable assets. I'm not expecting us to be fighting for our existence at the end of this.
We're kinda like a boat with holes in it where the pumps are just about keeping up. Other clubs are like boats with holes in them that keep crashing into other things and making more holes. [Post edited 14 Aug 2020 19:36]
|  |
| 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. |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 21:47 - Aug 14 with 1319 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:22 - Aug 13 by chad |
Uh uh Res Love
I can see sophistication might impress you.
As you correctly identify, you are wasting your time conversing with me. I am more Mini than Morgan.
Like the honest no nonsense opinion of experienced Counsel, in this particular field, who has placed his considerable reputation on stating we have a strong case for Unfair Prejudice,
Perhaps he was having a whinge too
So I am sure you will understand, I don’t mean to be rude, when I take his word over that of someone who, presents themselves as not understanding that a loan creates debt. (But strangely understands drag and tag, and seems to have got share dilution down ;)
But please if you actually think anything needs correcting, feel free to point it out. Unless you are just making stuff up again.
The test for unfairness is equally straightforward and not uncommon...
‘The courts will regard the prejudice as unfair if a hypothetical reasonable bystander would believe it to be unfair.’
And the remedy ...
in practice, the most common remedy awarded to a successful Petitioner is to order that their shares be purchased by those who caused the unfair prejudice.
My point being a simple one based on Badlands own comment
The loan / investment (where it ever to materialise) does not serve to give a value to the Trusts 21% shareholding as you assert,
The shares are only worth what anyone is prepared to pay for them.
Who would want to buy a substantial but powerless minority share holding
The unfair prejudice has put us in a position where our shares are effectively worthless in terms of power or monetary value, regardless of what division we are in. They are trapped shares.
The dilution (if the investment is ever made) will only serve to reduce our % shareholding. The value of course will not change as it is effectively 0.
As for your comment ‘The only effective way to avoid ownership obligations is to sell up. Thats life Im afraid’
I agree - I refer you to the remedy for unfair prejudice above.
Hope that is clear enough and straightforward enough for you.
As for the litany of evidenced actions by the respondents, that put us into this position, creating the strong case for unfair prejudice, don’t bother your head, I am sure our legal team has it all down. |
I am not optimistic about success in court and here is my logic which is up for debate of course.
The Trust shares are not worthless. Its a myth. The other owners would buy them at the right price for sure. Arsenal has a very rich Russian minor shareholder for example. All minor shareholders have to accept the decisions of the majority. That is the the law. It may seem unfair to the inexperienced investors which might be partly represented in the voting membership.
The QC said legal action was a last resort. There are any other options that are prefereable in my opinion. For example the fans that voted perhaps did not expect the seasons under Potter and Cooper to go so well. Premier league is not out of the question. Voting might have been influenced by dire predictions of league 1 or 2 football that have not materialised.
Lets assume the Judge sees him / herself as pro business.
Some sellers still have shares in the club and to stay interested might have to match fund the recent Silverstein Loan /investment. Legal action would in effect remove money from them to give to people with no interest in the club, the funders and the Trust. This makes no sense.
There is then the issue of what would happen in court at the discretion of the Judge even in victory.
Is he /she likey to make an huge award to a group that the other side will point out, has no staff, no strategy for spending the money, no longer invests in the club unlike other shareholders, and at time of crisis declined even to take any cash from its members. Such things a charitable work and behaviour/ deficiencies under arbitration and in negiociations might be considered in detail. Even at todays valuation there is a massive mark up on the invested 2002 price. Only an 100% win and a sympathic judge will be any good for the Trust who have no urgent need to cease to fulfil its constitution. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Jake Silverstein on 14:15 - Aug 15 with 1238 views | Catullus |
| Jake Silverstein on 19:35 - Aug 14 by Dr_Winston |
We don't have cash reserves. We were in the position where another player departure or two would have been needed to get us properly level this summer before Covid hit. Probably need at least the two now.
However, we are in a much better position than we might have been had we not worked so hard to clear the decks of high earners and saleable assets. I'm not expecting us to be fighting for our existence at the end of this.
We're kinda like a boat with holes in it where the pumps are just about keeping up. Other clubs are like boats with holes in them that keep crashing into other things and making more holes. [Post edited 14 Aug 2020 19:36]
|
I thought the club had stated we had low debt and decent cash reserves? Regardless, your analogy was what I meant, we aren't in a great position but definitely better off than some. If, as some expect, Ayew is sold on this window, it removes a big pay packet and possibly injects some cash into our account too.
This loan comes in with our last parachute payment and possibly another reduction in our total wage bill. We should be good ( assuming Ayew is sold) then. The big issues then are can Cooper replace Ayew and the loan players with the quality we need to prosper and further on, is this loan/investment actually a good deal for the club. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
