| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 14:16 - Mar 2 with 1272 views | Nookiejack |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 14:00 - Mar 2 by waynekerr55 |
Under resourced despite those sneaky c*nts awarding themselves inflation busting pay rises?
There were rumours doing the rounds that the accounts weren't exactly a true reflection, hence Pearlman's appointment. Is this just hot air or are there any foundations to these rumours? |
Yes most strange why they haven't been published since 17th December 2015. You would have thought they would have been published around 17th Dec 2016 and now we are in March 2017. |  | |  |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 14:22 - Mar 2 with 1253 views | tomdickharry |
One needs to look at and analysis the past 3 or 4 years accounts in order to ascertain a clear picture of how the business has been run. | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 15:02 - Mar 2 with 1204 views | Shaky |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 14:16 - Mar 2 by Nookiejack |
Yes most strange why they haven't been published since 17th December 2015. You would have thought they would have been published around 17th Dec 2016 and now we are in March 2017. |
The filing deadline for accounts is set with reference to the last date for which accounts have been filed.
Last time round the club filled for a one off 15 month period to bring financial reporting into line with the football season.
17th December 2015 + 1 year + 3 months extra last time = not yet due.
There is nothing strange or fishy about this whatsoever, and I'm sorry but I don't see how this witch-hunt style paranoia is doing anybody any favours. |  |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 15:04 - Mar 2 with 1193 views | Nookiejack |
As well as determing a credit rating will the Council have to conduct additional due diligence on who the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of Swansea LLC are (the Yanks's Holding company)?
On face of it the Council could be leasing a prime asset to a company ultimately owned in Delaware, in the US and no one knows who owns it? | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 15:27 - Mar 2 with 1164 views | NeathJack |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 15:04 - Mar 2 by Nookiejack |
As well as determing a credit rating will the Council have to conduct additional due diligence on who the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of Swansea LLC are (the Yanks's Holding company)?
On face of it the Council could be leasing a prime asset to a company ultimately owned in Delaware, in the US and no one knows who owns it? |
Would I be correct is stating that the Council could insist on the lease being held by the football club itself rather than the holding company and that it not be transferable? |  | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:00 - Mar 2 with 1139 views | NOTRAC |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 10:25 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
It's pretty simply why it's a bad deal for the football club. Currently it gets a third of the revenues and can't arrange its own deals unilaterally.
There's nothing in the Trust's aims regarding the club not holding the leasehold to the stadium. In fact you could quite easily argue that a primary aim of the Trust is to ensure the club is as financially well off as possible. |
I don't know where you get the idea that the Stadium account receives one third of the club's revenues.
Per the last accounts filed the stadium received income , after direct costs relating to shows and events etc of £2.2m. Of this amount only just over£720,000 came from gate receipt collections--Swansea (£306468), Ospreys (£73695) and the premier club( £340112.) The balance of £1.5m came from advertising, concerts, events and naming rights.
Therefore Swansea City contributed £646580 (if you include all the income paid by the Premier club as a football contribution) towards the costs of operating the Stadium The total gate receipts collected by the Stadium management, not including premium club income was £5,130,380.so to say one third is completely incorrect.
The total costs of operating the Stadium, including the payment of wages etc amounted to the aforesaid income of £2.2m. In fact a small profit was made of £48809.
Also included in the above operating costs are deductions which are kept in a Lifecycle Maintenance plan.This plan commenced in 2011 and was computed by Quantity surveyors Faithful and Gould. Each year the club places into a special bank account amounts to cover future costs for stadium maintenance which Faithful and Gould estimated in 2011 over a 50 year period at £5,793,601. By agreement the Stadium is inspected each year by Faithful and Gould, and I would imagine the amount is adjusted if appropriate. This fund is in addition to normal repair and maintenance costs.At the 31st May 2015 the fund and bank account balance stood at £933,196.
The accounts make reference to the need for sound system repairs, and the need for repainting to avoid rusting.
In other words the Stadium Maintenance Company is run on a proper commercial basis to ensure its one and prime aim, the maintenance and future safeguards of the stadium.
The directors include representatives of the club,Ospreys and council , and there is virtually nil ground rent.As a side point here, surely a Trust member should have had representation on this Board.
If the lease is transferred to the Club then the club will have to pay a premium on a new lease plus possible compensation payments to the Ospreys.Also how will a new lease affect the Premier club?
Also remember it is not just about obtaining additional income from naming rights and advertising etc.The football club would then take on full responsibility for the maintenance of the ground and the payment of Stadium wages. Undoubtedly the ground rent payable to the council would be a lot higher.In addition the money to pay for all this would either have to be borrowed through the club, or if introduced by the new shareholders would appear in the accounts as a substantial creditor Also that loan could be used in the future to purchase shares, thereby reducing the Trusts own equity percentage.If it is a long term lease that in itself could also be used in the future for mortgaging purposes.If extensions are made to the ground then it is very unlikely that that would be covered by increased revenues, and would also lead to future loans.
I repeat that in my opinion the present lease was set up to safeguard the future of the Stadium for the people of Swansea.To change it is risk taking , especially at the moment,and the Trust should be dead against this change. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:02 - Mar 2 with 1130 views | Nookiejack |
It' seems quite ironic that if anyone of us wanted to open a bank account - we would have to undergo stringent 'Know Your Customer' rules to identify us (to ensure no history of Money Laundering, no history or intention to financially transact with Sanctioned Countries such as Syria, etc.)
.......yet the prime asset in the middle of the city i.e. The club - no one seems to know who it is owned by? Does anyone know who are the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of Swansea Football LLC?
Do Kaplan and Levein own it outright?
How do the City Council get comfortable with this if Stadium Management Company is now dissolved and lease held by Swansea Football LLC or Club owned by Swansea Football LLC? | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:28 - Mar 2 with 1104 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:00 - Mar 2 by NOTRAC |
I don't know where you get the idea that the Stadium account receives one third of the club's revenues.
Per the last accounts filed the stadium received income , after direct costs relating to shows and events etc of £2.2m. Of this amount only just over£720,000 came from gate receipt collections--Swansea (£306468), Ospreys (£73695) and the premier club( £340112.) The balance of £1.5m came from advertising, concerts, events and naming rights.
Therefore Swansea City contributed £646580 (if you include all the income paid by the Premier club as a football contribution) towards the costs of operating the Stadium The total gate receipts collected by the Stadium management, not including premium club income was £5,130,380.so to say one third is completely incorrect.
The total costs of operating the Stadium, including the payment of wages etc amounted to the aforesaid income of £2.2m. In fact a small profit was made of £48809.
Also included in the above operating costs are deductions which are kept in a Lifecycle Maintenance plan.This plan commenced in 2011 and was computed by Quantity surveyors Faithful and Gould. Each year the club places into a special bank account amounts to cover future costs for stadium maintenance which Faithful and Gould estimated in 2011 over a 50 year period at £5,793,601. By agreement the Stadium is inspected each year by Faithful and Gould, and I would imagine the amount is adjusted if appropriate. This fund is in addition to normal repair and maintenance costs.At the 31st May 2015 the fund and bank account balance stood at £933,196.
The accounts make reference to the need for sound system repairs, and the need for repainting to avoid rusting.
In other words the Stadium Maintenance Company is run on a proper commercial basis to ensure its one and prime aim, the maintenance and future safeguards of the stadium.
The directors include representatives of the club,Ospreys and council , and there is virtually nil ground rent.As a side point here, surely a Trust member should have had representation on this Board.
If the lease is transferred to the Club then the club will have to pay a premium on a new lease plus possible compensation payments to the Ospreys.Also how will a new lease affect the Premier club?
Also remember it is not just about obtaining additional income from naming rights and advertising etc.The football club would then take on full responsibility for the maintenance of the ground and the payment of Stadium wages. Undoubtedly the ground rent payable to the council would be a lot higher.In addition the money to pay for all this would either have to be borrowed through the club, or if introduced by the new shareholders would appear in the accounts as a substantial creditor Also that loan could be used in the future to purchase shares, thereby reducing the Trusts own equity percentage.If it is a long term lease that in itself could also be used in the future for mortgaging purposes.If extensions are made to the ground then it is very unlikely that that would be covered by increased revenues, and would also lead to future loans.
I repeat that in my opinion the present lease was set up to safeguard the future of the Stadium for the people of Swansea.To change it is risk taking , especially at the moment,and the Trust should be dead against this change. |
Stadium advertising and sponsorship revenues. And I didn't say it receives a third of the clubs revenues (that's just silly), I meant the club would receive a third of any joint stadium related ... assuming a profit of course, which often isn't the case. Given the Swans are the main attraction here, surely it's obvious why the club want to change that.
Saying that SSMC is doing a good job because advertising revenues broadly match expenses is a bit simplistic IMO. [Post edited 2 Mar 2017 16:37]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:28 - Mar 2 with 1102 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 15:27 - Mar 2 by NeathJack |
Would I be correct is stating that the Council could insist on the lease being held by the football club itself rather than the holding company and that it not be transferable? |
That must be a condition. An absolute must. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:31 - Mar 2 with 1092 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 14:00 - Mar 2 by waynekerr55 |
Under resourced despite those sneaky c*nts awarding themselves inflation busting pay rises?
There were rumours doing the rounds that the accounts weren't exactly a true reflection, hence Pearlman's appointment. Is this just hot air or are there any foundations to these rumours? |
For what it's worth, that isn't something i've heard. Pearlman's been brought in to look after the commercial and organisational side, not as some sort of forensic accountant. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:39 - Mar 2 with 1070 views | waynekerr55 |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:31 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
For what it's worth, that isn't something i've heard. Pearlman's been brought in to look after the commercial and organisational side, not as some sort of forensic accountant. |
Which begs the question - why the fúck is the illicit love child of Jabba the Hut and Frank Spencer still in his post? |  |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:41 - Mar 2 with 1065 views | NOTRAC |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:02 - Mar 2 by Nookiejack |
It' seems quite ironic that if anyone of us wanted to open a bank account - we would have to undergo stringent 'Know Your Customer' rules to identify us (to ensure no history of Money Laundering, no history or intention to financially transact with Sanctioned Countries such as Syria, etc.)
.......yet the prime asset in the middle of the city i.e. The club - no one seems to know who it is owned by? Does anyone know who are the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of Swansea Football LLC?
Do Kaplan and Levein own it outright?
How do the City Council get comfortable with this if Stadium Management Company is now dissolved and lease held by Swansea Football LLC or Club owned by Swansea Football LLC? |
Swansea City Association Football Club is a subsidiary of Swansea City 2002 Limited.That in itself doesn't mean much and as far as I am aware has been no benefit to past shareholders including the Trust.
The important difference now is that whereas previously no individual whether in their own name or in a Company name owned more than 24%, now the investment Company ,Swansea Football LLC ,registered in America holds the majority of shares and has full control over both Swansea City Association Football Club and Swansea City 2002 Limited.
There is one further twist in that Swansea city LLC does not hold all its shares directly in The football clubs. Roughly one third of its shares are invested in a British company called OTH 2015 Limited.Oth 2015 is owned and run by Levien and Kaplan and owns the balance of shares in the football club directly.
Why has it been set up in this way. My guess is that OTH 2015 is a management company designed to extract management charges from the football clubs to create losses and avoid the payment of dividends, which of course otherwise the Trust would participate in.
We are now run by astute business people .Previously we were run by friends of Swansea City who created this situation for their own greed. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:49 - Mar 2 with 1047 views | NOTRAC |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:28 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
Stadium advertising and sponsorship revenues. And I didn't say it receives a third of the clubs revenues (that's just silly), I meant the club would receive a third of any joint stadium related ... assuming a profit of course, which often isn't the case. Given the Swans are the main attraction here, surely it's obvious why the club want to change that.
Saying that SSMC is doing a good job because advertising revenues broadly match expenses is a bit simplistic IMO. [Post edited 2 Mar 2017 16:37]
|
You still haven't got it.Profits are for Stadium development.They have never been shared between the Football Club and the Ospreys.The intention is not to make profits but to increase income to the extent that minimum amounts are taken from the football club ,Ospreys and Premier club to pay the costs of running the Stadium and to build up sufficient funds as determined by outside professional valuers to maintain that Stadium in a good state throughout the period of its lease.
As I keep saying no profit can be used to pay shareholders, directors or any other costs other than Stadium costs.
How can that be bettered in any way at all? [Post edited 2 Mar 2017 16:50]
| |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:52 - Mar 2 with 1038 views | Dr_Winston |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:41 - Mar 2 by NOTRAC |
Swansea City Association Football Club is a subsidiary of Swansea City 2002 Limited.That in itself doesn't mean much and as far as I am aware has been no benefit to past shareholders including the Trust.
The important difference now is that whereas previously no individual whether in their own name or in a Company name owned more than 24%, now the investment Company ,Swansea Football LLC ,registered in America holds the majority of shares and has full control over both Swansea City Association Football Club and Swansea City 2002 Limited.
There is one further twist in that Swansea city LLC does not hold all its shares directly in The football clubs. Roughly one third of its shares are invested in a British company called OTH 2015 Limited.Oth 2015 is owned and run by Levien and Kaplan and owns the balance of shares in the football club directly.
Why has it been set up in this way. My guess is that OTH 2015 is a management company designed to extract management charges from the football clubs to create losses and avoid the payment of dividends, which of course otherwise the Trust would participate in.
We are now run by astute business people .Previously we were run by friends of Swansea City who created this situation for their own greed. |
OTH was previously owned by Martin Morgan. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:00 - Mar 2 with 1024 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:49 - Mar 2 by NOTRAC |
You still haven't got it.Profits are for Stadium development.They have never been shared between the Football Club and the Ospreys.The intention is not to make profits but to increase income to the extent that minimum amounts are taken from the football club ,Ospreys and Premier club to pay the costs of running the Stadium and to build up sufficient funds as determined by outside professional valuers to maintain that Stadium in a good state throughout the period of its lease.
As I keep saying no profit can be used to pay shareholders, directors or any other costs other than Stadium costs.
How can that be bettered in any way at all? [Post edited 2 Mar 2017 16:50]
|
I've got it. I just think you're missing the point.
I'll spell it out again. SSMC was formed to ensure the stadium was self-sufficient, and that costs were equitably shared. All well and good when the two partners are relatively equal in terms of their ability to attract sponsorship deals, attendances etc. What we've seen in the last 10 years is the football side grow exponentially and the rugby stagnate. We also remain in a position where any revenues around stadium naming, advertising etc are shared equally, if there's a profit to be paid out. Which, as you say, doesn't really happen.
So, from a Club perspective, a) it can't arrange its own stadium naming deals and enjoy the full benefits of them and b) every time it wants to do something to the stadium - put up a new screen, extend capacity, even paint a wall (the Trust Wall needed Ospreys permission in effect) then it needs the agreement of the Ospreys and the Council. That's inherently inefficient.
Surely, from that perspective, you can see how the club is hamstrung by the current arrangements. It can't possibly maximise its own income under the current arrangement.
I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest retaining the council and the Ospreys as overseers of what the football club can do in terms of the stadium maintenance is in any way beneficial. I would be extremely concerned if there were issues around where the lease is held (however there is zero indication it would be anywhere other than the football club) but I find the idea that the stadium will fall into ruin without the Ospreys and Council holding the advertising pursestrings and retaining a cut of matchday revenue entirely fanciful.
It's only right that there are concerns with any move such as this. However not the ones you're coming up with. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:01 - Mar 2 with 1021 views | Dr_Winston |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:00 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
I've got it. I just think you're missing the point.
I'll spell it out again. SSMC was formed to ensure the stadium was self-sufficient, and that costs were equitably shared. All well and good when the two partners are relatively equal in terms of their ability to attract sponsorship deals, attendances etc. What we've seen in the last 10 years is the football side grow exponentially and the rugby stagnate. We also remain in a position where any revenues around stadium naming, advertising etc are shared equally, if there's a profit to be paid out. Which, as you say, doesn't really happen.
So, from a Club perspective, a) it can't arrange its own stadium naming deals and enjoy the full benefits of them and b) every time it wants to do something to the stadium - put up a new screen, extend capacity, even paint a wall (the Trust Wall needed Ospreys permission in effect) then it needs the agreement of the Ospreys and the Council. That's inherently inefficient.
Surely, from that perspective, you can see how the club is hamstrung by the current arrangements. It can't possibly maximise its own income under the current arrangement.
I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest retaining the council and the Ospreys as overseers of what the football club can do in terms of the stadium maintenance is in any way beneficial. I would be extremely concerned if there were issues around where the lease is held (however there is zero indication it would be anywhere other than the football club) but I find the idea that the stadium will fall into ruin without the Ospreys and Council holding the advertising pursestrings and retaining a cut of matchday revenue entirely fanciful.
It's only right that there are concerns with any move such as this. However not the ones you're coming up with. |
Seems fairly straightforward to me. | |
| 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. |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:05 - Mar 2 with 1006 views | Nookiejack |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 16:52 - Mar 2 by Dr_Winston |
OTH was previously owned by Martin Morgan. |
It looks like from Companies House
Swansea Football LLC bought OTH off Martin Morgan
Swansea Football then transferred shares back directly to Martin Morgan 2.5% and his wife 2.5%. This means they were left with a residual holding of 5% in total.
The 5% seems symmetrical to the 5% residual holding that Huw Jenkins holds.
You would think the Yanks wanted Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan to remain with some skin in the game - until operational knowledge was passed on to them. They may or may not have then agreed to buy these residual stakes out at some point in the future depending on certain performance criteria (not getting relegated would be the first that comes to mind).
Why this may be relevant is if Trust ever agrees to sell its stake on same conditions as HuwJenkins and Martin Morgan - what would be the deal with regards to the residual stakes that the Trust may hold - similarly to Martin Morgan and Huw Jenkins. | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:08 - Mar 2 with 1003 views | NOTRAC |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:00 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
I've got it. I just think you're missing the point.
I'll spell it out again. SSMC was formed to ensure the stadium was self-sufficient, and that costs were equitably shared. All well and good when the two partners are relatively equal in terms of their ability to attract sponsorship deals, attendances etc. What we've seen in the last 10 years is the football side grow exponentially and the rugby stagnate. We also remain in a position where any revenues around stadium naming, advertising etc are shared equally, if there's a profit to be paid out. Which, as you say, doesn't really happen.
So, from a Club perspective, a) it can't arrange its own stadium naming deals and enjoy the full benefits of them and b) every time it wants to do something to the stadium - put up a new screen, extend capacity, even paint a wall (the Trust Wall needed Ospreys permission in effect) then it needs the agreement of the Ospreys and the Council. That's inherently inefficient.
Surely, from that perspective, you can see how the club is hamstrung by the current arrangements. It can't possibly maximise its own income under the current arrangement.
I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest retaining the council and the Ospreys as overseers of what the football club can do in terms of the stadium maintenance is in any way beneficial. I would be extremely concerned if there were issues around where the lease is held (however there is zero indication it would be anywhere other than the football club) but I find the idea that the stadium will fall into ruin without the Ospreys and Council holding the advertising pursestrings and retaining a cut of matchday revenue entirely fanciful.
It's only right that there are concerns with any move such as this. However not the ones you're coming up with. |
I now give up completely .There is no point in me carrying on with my arguments as you and the other Trust members of the committee have obviously made up your minds that a new lease is beneficial for the future .Because I love the football club I sincerely hope you are right.
I just hope that I do not have the circumstances to come on here in a few years time and tell you that I was right all the time. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:19 - Mar 2 with 983 views | Nookiejack |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:00 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
I've got it. I just think you're missing the point.
I'll spell it out again. SSMC was formed to ensure the stadium was self-sufficient, and that costs were equitably shared. All well and good when the two partners are relatively equal in terms of their ability to attract sponsorship deals, attendances etc. What we've seen in the last 10 years is the football side grow exponentially and the rugby stagnate. We also remain in a position where any revenues around stadium naming, advertising etc are shared equally, if there's a profit to be paid out. Which, as you say, doesn't really happen.
So, from a Club perspective, a) it can't arrange its own stadium naming deals and enjoy the full benefits of them and b) every time it wants to do something to the stadium - put up a new screen, extend capacity, even paint a wall (the Trust Wall needed Ospreys permission in effect) then it needs the agreement of the Ospreys and the Council. That's inherently inefficient.
Surely, from that perspective, you can see how the club is hamstrung by the current arrangements. It can't possibly maximise its own income under the current arrangement.
I've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest retaining the council and the Ospreys as overseers of what the football club can do in terms of the stadium maintenance is in any way beneficial. I would be extremely concerned if there were issues around where the lease is held (however there is zero indication it would be anywhere other than the football club) but I find the idea that the stadium will fall into ruin without the Ospreys and Council holding the advertising pursestrings and retaining a cut of matchday revenue entirely fanciful.
It's only right that there are concerns with any move such as this. However not the ones you're coming up with. |
I think it depends on your view of probability of relegation - as you could then be left with an expensive lease, with stadium to maintain and declining revenues from lower league status. Revenue from Naming rights might also fall if there are penalty clauses for relegation and will eventually as contract expires and if you don't get promoted back to Premie League.
I think each and every season we have 3 out of 12 clubs chance of being relegated. (3 teams always being relegated - assuming top clubs won't - especially top 6 with their financial fire power). That equates to a 1 in 4 seasons chance of becoming relegated.
Therefore in my view you are taking a high risk chance by Dissolving current lease.
We think we are going to remain in PL forever - however football is very fluid and cyclical. | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:21 - Mar 2 with 977 views | Loyal |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:08 - Mar 2 by NOTRAC |
I now give up completely .There is no point in me carrying on with my arguments as you and the other Trust members of the committee have obviously made up your minds that a new lease is beneficial for the future .Because I love the football club I sincerely hope you are right.
I just hope that I do not have the circumstances to come on here in a few years time and tell you that I was right all the time. |
Let's have a ......
 |  |
| 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 |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 18:08 - Mar 2 with 1512 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 17:19 - Mar 2 by Nookiejack |
I think it depends on your view of probability of relegation - as you could then be left with an expensive lease, with stadium to maintain and declining revenues from lower league status. Revenue from Naming rights might also fall if there are penalty clauses for relegation and will eventually as contract expires and if you don't get promoted back to Premie League.
I think each and every season we have 3 out of 12 clubs chance of being relegated. (3 teams always being relegated - assuming top clubs won't - especially top 6 with their financial fire power). That equates to a 1 in 4 seasons chance of becoming relegated.
Therefore in my view you are taking a high risk chance by Dissolving current lease.
We think we are going to remain in PL forever - however football is very fluid and cyclical. |
I agree actually that relegation could be a concern if the lease terms don't factor that in. Depends on the financial deal between the club and council as part of this. I would have concerns if the same contribution was paid to the council even if we dropped to League 1. | |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 18:10 - Mar 2 with 1507 views | taffpunk |
Never mind all this, when's the big protests about the Americans taking over happening? Seems all is fine and dandy now the soccer team is doing better, shame on you all. | |
| Second Time Around Record Shop-Tonypandy, RCT-Open Friday and Saturday.
Valley Leaflets-Reliable Leaflet Distribution throughout South Wales. |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 18:22 - Mar 2 with 1487 views | Loyal |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 18:10 - Mar 2 by taffpunk |
Never mind all this, when's the big protests about the Americans taking over happening? Seems all is fine and dandy now the soccer team is doing better, shame on you all. |
I think a broader view was taken, hopefully they will make a film about it one day.
But it isn't finished yet. | |
| 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 |
| |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 18:26 - Mar 2 with 1475 views | Nookiejack |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 18:10 - Mar 2 by taffpunk |
Never mind all this, when's the big protests about the Americans taking over happening? Seems all is fine and dandy now the soccer team is doing better, shame on you all. |
Lose against Burnley and Hull...... | | | |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 18:43 - Mar 2 with 1444 views | monmouth |
| Swans in talks to take control of stadium on 18:10 - Mar 2 by taffpunk |
Never mind all this, when's the big protests about the Americans taking over happening? Seems all is fine and dandy now the soccer team is doing better, shame on you all. |
Fair point Mr punk. Maybe you can join us and have your riot for sacking fack aye Mackay at the same time? Football fans eh? Fickle as hell. You'd still be in red if you'd managed not to be so shit.
I'd still like a few choruses of you greedy bastards before May, but sadly I think it would take a situation I don't want to see to make it happen. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.