| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 12:07 - Jan 24 with 2629 views | tomdickharry |
What stands out for me in the Statement is that the recruitment of players has been abysmal,there are diamonds around and we have not been smart enough to spot them,recruit and possibly saved ourselves millions of ponds,the outstanding example Callum Wilson,there are others Dominic Iorfa (Wolves),Stuart Dallas (Leeds),Michael Keane (Burnley). |  | |  |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 12:28 - Jan 24 with 2568 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 12:07 - Jan 24 by tomdickharry |
What stands out for me in the Statement is that the recruitment of players has been abysmal,there are diamonds around and we have not been smart enough to spot them,recruit and possibly saved ourselves millions of ponds,the outstanding example Callum Wilson,there are others Dominic Iorfa (Wolves),Stuart Dallas (Leeds),Michael Keane (Burnley). |
I don't think anyone - probably not even the board - would disagree with that.
Personally I can understand why Tabanou was signed and everyone was excited about that one. As for Eder... he had no record of scoring goals even in a crap league like Portugal. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:38 - Jan 24 with 2373 views | BarryTownSwam |
But the £45m deficit does not include the transfer value of the current squad.
Sell a few and the deficit will be a lot lot lot healthier.
It's all numbers of an accountants spreadsheet | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:45 - Jan 24 with 2353 views | Jack_The_Groove |
Agree that this is a good statement. But what I would like to know more about is, if we stay up, what the significance of the huge TV money will be to the club, and how that will be invested. Especially in terms of strengthening the squad. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:45 - Jan 24 with 2297 views | perplex |
Fair statement as far as i am concerned. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 23:40 - Jan 24 with 2140 views | harryhpalmer |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:37 - Jan 23 by exiledclaseboy |
And the sort of thing the Trust should be doing much more of. It still reads like the sort of info the club itself should be releasing but seeing as the club can't or won't, kudos to the Trust for saying what they can. |
Good that the Trust has made this statement, what the hell do we pay the Club's PR department to do? | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 00:43 - Jan 25 with 2105 views | Loyal |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 23:40 - Jan 24 by harryhpalmer |
Good that the Trust has made this statement, what the hell do we pay the Club's PR department to do? |
What PR dept ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 00:56 - Jan 25 with 2103 views | DAL9000 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 00:12 - Jan 24 by swanstillidai |
For the past couple of weeks I've been trying to get my head around how the actual f*ck our club has 600 staff on the payroll. |
Let's see if we can't figure it out! I would guess a plurality of the employees are at the academy -- IIRC it employs 40 full-time coaches and 20 part-time, so that's 60 right there.
Presumably the academy will also have technical directors at various levels and perhaps its own recruitment staff, plus operations people to make travel arrangements and keep appropriate supplies on hand and so forth. Maybe another... 15 there? 20? Say 20, and that gets us up to 80.
Also, possibly there are a handful of nutritionists (and maybe cooks, if the kids are fed on-site?) and when you add in a small medical staff, that could get you up to 90-plus employees at the academy alone.
Which doesn't tell you what the other 510 employees can possibly be doing all day, but look, there are a lot of great cat videos on the Internet and they won't just watch THEMSELVES. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 01:50 - Jan 25 with 2084 views | swanstillidai |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 00:56 - Jan 25 by DAL9000 |
Let's see if we can't figure it out! I would guess a plurality of the employees are at the academy -- IIRC it employs 40 full-time coaches and 20 part-time, so that's 60 right there.
Presumably the academy will also have technical directors at various levels and perhaps its own recruitment staff, plus operations people to make travel arrangements and keep appropriate supplies on hand and so forth. Maybe another... 15 there? 20? Say 20, and that gets us up to 80.
Also, possibly there are a handful of nutritionists (and maybe cooks, if the kids are fed on-site?) and when you add in a small medical staff, that could get you up to 90-plus employees at the academy alone.
Which doesn't tell you what the other 510 employees can possibly be doing all day, but look, there are a lot of great cat videos on the Internet and they won't just watch THEMSELVES. |
I got to around 250 and gave up.
I suppose the stewards are technically on the books too. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 07:37 - Jan 25 with 2048 views | Highjack |
They have loads of people in the ticket office too. They have one serving the massive queue and about seven or eight standing around in the background trying to look important. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 12:07 - Jan 25 with 1960 views | jackonicko |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 01:50 - Jan 25 by swanstillidai |
I got to around 250 and gave up.
I suppose the stewards are technically on the books too. |
Then you were very nearly there. Where did this figure of 600 come from anyway?
The accounts record 307 employees of the club. 222 have roles recorded as relating to "football", 17 in "administration", 59 in "commercial" and 9 for "media".
The number of employees is up from 246 the prior year, and nearly all of the difference comes under the heading of football. Presumably this is the ramp up of people required for cat 1 academy status?
I don't know if "media" covers watching the cat videos on youtube. My suspicion is that is actually covered by 50 or so of the 59 people in Commercial.
All of the stadium staff - eg stewards - are presumably separately recorded under SSMC, not the football club. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 12:17 - Jan 25 with 1952 views | whiterock |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 12:07 - Jan 25 by jackonicko |
Then you were very nearly there. Where did this figure of 600 come from anyway?
The accounts record 307 employees of the club. 222 have roles recorded as relating to "football", 17 in "administration", 59 in "commercial" and 9 for "media".
The number of employees is up from 246 the prior year, and nearly all of the difference comes under the heading of football. Presumably this is the ramp up of people required for cat 1 academy status?
I don't know if "media" covers watching the cat videos on youtube. My suspicion is that is actually covered by 50 or so of the 59 people in Commercial.
All of the stadium staff - eg stewards - are presumably separately recorded under SSMC, not the football club. |
450 was figure I heard and this covered casual staff, waiters, waitresses, bar staff, stewards, security, cleaners, 3 shops, ticket office etc. Not all are directly employed by SCFC. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:21 - Jan 25 with 1905 views | AngelRangelQS |
Sh*t article in keeping with the sh*t fanzine. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:25 - Jan 25 with 1901 views | JackSwanTV |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:21 - Jan 25 by AngelRangelQS |
Sh*t article in keeping with the sh*t fanzine. |
I'm sure such a remark would make you very popular on here but please expand.... If you can. No valid points? | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:34 - Jan 25 with 1893 views | swanstillidai |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 12:07 - Jan 25 by jackonicko |
Then you were very nearly there. Where did this figure of 600 come from anyway?
The accounts record 307 employees of the club. 222 have roles recorded as relating to "football", 17 in "administration", 59 in "commercial" and 9 for "media".
The number of employees is up from 246 the prior year, and nearly all of the difference comes under the heading of football. Presumably this is the ramp up of people required for cat 1 academy status?
I don't know if "media" covers watching the cat videos on youtube. My suspicion is that is actually covered by 50 or so of the 59 people in Commercial.
All of the stadium staff - eg stewards - are presumably separately recorded under SSMC, not the football club. |
From your mukka...
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/forum/163092/don-keefe-swansea | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:38 - Jan 25 with 1879 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:25 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
I'm sure such a remark would make you very popular on here but please expand.... If you can. No valid points? |
So you criticise this site but it's good enough for you to come on here peddling your crap.
I'm not really sure what your beef is with the figures used to be honest. 3.5 years is presumably from the summer that Brendan left which is a decent enough reference point. You could go back further and the figure is still high.
Why say the trust is misleading people? What purpose would that serve?
At a time when everyone needs to pull in the same direction, idiotic articles like this only serve to cause the thickos of Swansea to make further uneducated and unfair criticisms of the people running the club and giving up their free time to work on the trust | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:43 - Jan 25 with 1878 views | JackSomething |
I can't help but think you'd probably have a more successful fanzine if you actually appeared to support the club? Writing vague articles like that which suggest problems without any actual evidence seem to suggest you're the opposite of a supporter. IMHO of course. |  |
| You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocket ship underpants don't help. |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:52 - Jan 25 with 1864 views | JackSwanTV |
You assume after Brendan? Is this right? Before Allen sale? Because that £15 million makes a big difference in 40 million. Why no net for monk? It's clearly designed to blame the manager and turn attention away from the board. I totally back the board and the trust but I do believe we have been misled and I don't appreciate it | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:16 - Jan 25 with 1834 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 13:52 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
You assume after Brendan? Is this right? Before Allen sale? Because that £15 million makes a big difference in 40 million. Why no net for monk? It's clearly designed to blame the manager and turn attention away from the board. I totally back the board and the trust but I do believe we have been misled and I don't appreciate it |
Well 3.5 years ago was summer 2012 | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:26 - Jan 25 with 1818 views | JackSwanTV |
For anyone browsing over that statement, it implies that the club have invested close to £12 million a year towards transfers and that monk had shed loads of cash and wasted it all.
I don't think it's a coincidence that they have chosen a timescale which will make the results look like the club have spent the most possible.
If you took it over 4 1/2 years then it would be closer to £5 million a year and we all know fans wouldn't be as happy with that.
And with monk, it implies he had loads of money. Simply skimming over the statement makes you think he wasted £50 million. What is the net? As much as £10 million? Maybe less? If it read and 'monk spent £10 million over three transfer windows' then I don't think fans would think he was 'backed' and would look at board more than him.
That is why I feel it is to mislead. It's a case of 'let's unite and blame monk' and I'm sorry but I don't think that's right, certainly not with selective figures anyway. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:43 - Jan 25 with 1794 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:26 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
For anyone browsing over that statement, it implies that the club have invested close to £12 million a year towards transfers and that monk had shed loads of cash and wasted it all.
I don't think it's a coincidence that they have chosen a timescale which will make the results look like the club have spent the most possible.
If you took it over 4 1/2 years then it would be closer to £5 million a year and we all know fans wouldn't be as happy with that.
And with monk, it implies he had loads of money. Simply skimming over the statement makes you think he wasted £50 million. What is the net? As much as £10 million? Maybe less? If it read and 'monk spent £10 million over three transfer windows' then I don't think fans would think he was 'backed' and would look at board more than him.
That is why I feel it is to mislead. It's a case of 'let's unite and blame monk' and I'm sorry but I don't think that's right, certainly not with selective figures anyway. |
I see your Rodgers and Allen, and raise you a Graham (3.5), Lita (2), Caulker (loan fee, about £1m IIRC), Gylfi (no idea, but not going to be cheap), McEachran (anothe £1m as I recall). Sinclair went in the August window, and we spent the same amount on Pablo.
Must admit I do find it strange that you took offence at an article taking an arbitary timeline when you pretty much made up your own, and your own figures of course which seemed to ignore a large amount of outgoings. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:49 - Jan 25 with 1784 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:26 - Jan 25 by JackSwanTV |
For anyone browsing over that statement, it implies that the club have invested close to £12 million a year towards transfers and that monk had shed loads of cash and wasted it all.
I don't think it's a coincidence that they have chosen a timescale which will make the results look like the club have spent the most possible.
If you took it over 4 1/2 years then it would be closer to £5 million a year and we all know fans wouldn't be as happy with that.
And with monk, it implies he had loads of money. Simply skimming over the statement makes you think he wasted £50 million. What is the net? As much as £10 million? Maybe less? If it read and 'monk spent £10 million over three transfer windows' then I don't think fans would think he was 'backed' and would look at board more than him.
That is why I feel it is to mislead. It's a case of 'let's unite and blame monk' and I'm sorry but I don't think that's right, certainly not with selective figures anyway. |
Well it's only you that reads it in that way.
We've only real started spending money since the end of the first season as quite rightly we were guarded in the first year because the board probably thought we'd go straight back down.
It was only since Brendan left that we've started spending money. Even if you made it since we got promoted, the amount of money the club would have spent as a result of our promotion would really increase that figure... Changes to the stadium, electronic boards (pitch facing ones), promotion bonus, increase in staff etc...
Personally I don't think a net spend of £5m a year is that bad considering we've also invested heavily in the training grounds and academy | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:51 - Jan 25 with 1777 views | monmouth |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 14:43 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
I see your Rodgers and Allen, and raise you a Graham (3.5), Lita (2), Caulker (loan fee, about £1m IIRC), Gylfi (no idea, but not going to be cheap), McEachran (anothe £1m as I recall). Sinclair went in the August window, and we spent the same amount on Pablo.
Must admit I do find it strange that you took offence at an article taking an arbitary timeline when you pretty much made up your own, and your own figures of course which seemed to ignore a large amount of outgoings. |
You find it strange that thinking, logic and critical analysis isn't Jackswan's strong suit?
You need another gin and tonic. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
