| Swans shareholder interview "Swans stink" 20:24 - Dec 24 with 7323 views | QJumpingJack |
Surely Kaplan, Levien, Gude and Coleman should ask him to explain his comments from this interview.
This does not come across well. "Swans stink"
https://www.tiktok.com/@pardon [Post edited 25 Dec 2023 20:30]
|  | | |  |
| Swans shareholder interview on 15:19 - Dec 29 with 1108 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:39 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust based on accounts paid legal fees of around £400,000 from what i can determine. Their biggest investment in anything to date. A West acres house for the club to accommodate football people would have been better perhaps bringing in a rental income with house price growth.
They were negotiating an hybrid 'no win no fee' deal with their advisors / funders. According to the Trust themselves the fees were very high. I called them "eye watering". They wanted more than 50% recovered from the other owners / previous sellers.
A win of £21m would see around £11m heading east into the pockets of third parties.
Silverstein and the Levien group put around £13m into the Convertible loan note. Once they did this the Trust plan was over as some of the loan note (a dept to the club would land an £8-9m repayment notice on Mr Winters table).
The club would have to return the note to the loanees to help pay the Trusts legal bills. This meant the Trust could not argue the the case would not harm the club. The legal case would have devastated the club. You can be sure all responsibility for a real 'fire sale' would be directed at the SCST in that event.
You seem to be struggling with this. |
How do you know so much about the "no win no fee" deal? Where is your source or are you "speculating" again?
The rest about the trust is the same old baiting codswallop you always spout.
The trust board were elected and went against the memberships wishes which is a stated fact and you know that so why spread lies constantly?
You seem to think that one saying bad things about 1000 is acceptable but 100 saying things about you is wrong, maybe it's just a sign that you are wrong? Consider it. The evidence says you are wrong. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 15:26 - Dec 29 with 1097 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Swans shareholder interview on 20:04 - Dec 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Personal abuse is a defining feature of the dimwits I come across on here. The Chief being the most vocal. At least he could debate and got verbal after losing the debate.
Blackburn protested aggressively 13 years ago like you are pathetically calling for now. Guess what the Venky's are still there. Protesting fans put off buyers not encourage them.
Your 'brilliant plan' involves pushing the value of the club down to make it easier to sell. It does not work. You favour putting hard working people in the club shop out of work by encouraging a boycott. None of your family work for the cub presumably?
This was the cunning plan of the legal case led by the past Trust leadership that were asleep when they should have been selling shares. A £21m legal bill given to the US owners would have been devaluing for the club and seen it drop to league 2. Many Trust loyalists wanted the old days of league 1 and 2 when their £10 subscription actually count. (Exeter city) |
Who has give you personal abuse then?
Come on name them?
I have been highly critical of you but never abused you, criticism isn't abuse, Only a dimwit would think so. Are you a dimwit?
So name those who abuse you.
You hav routinely called thousands of Swansea fans thick, dimwitted and lazy. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:34 - Dec 29 with 1047 views | onehunglow |
| Swans shareholder interview on 15:26 - Dec 29 by SullutaCreturned |
Who has give you personal abuse then?
Come on name them?
I have been highly critical of you but never abused you, criticism isn't abuse, Only a dimwit would think so. Are you a dimwit?
So name those who abuse you.
You hav routinely called thousands of Swansea fans thick, dimwitted and lazy. |
Think I am guilty of that .
Dimwit ,however, not having that .
Tedious ,puritanical, Possibly.
Res makes some good points and also some horrific ones .
I’m not a valley man though and always seen them as rather “ backward”. ( no offence) | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:43 - Dec 29 with 1040 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 15:26 - Dec 29 by SullutaCreturned |
Who has give you personal abuse then?
Come on name them?
I have been highly critical of you but never abused you, criticism isn't abuse, Only a dimwit would think so. Are you a dimwit?
So name those who abuse you.
You hav routinely called thousands of Swansea fans thick, dimwitted and lazy. |
The Chief. I have been warned by the Moderator not to call people 'dimwits'. So i will not.
I have called out the Members of the Trust for their very poor administration of that organisation. They paid their £10 and then had a duty to do the best for the club. They in effect became owners and their voice was heard in the boardroom.
As such they had to be responsible and act in the interests of the club. Having taken on leadership role they became fair game for criticism. In debating the right and wrong of the behaviour of the SCST only the Chief engaged and he had no satisfactory answers.
I contest the membership of the Trust are not sufficiently sophisticated and business savvy to carry a ownership role in the club. Their performance has been dismal. The reasons for this is the members did not engage and did not analyse. They were coasting.
When I started debating members on here offered nothing. Only the Chief. |  |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 18:17 - Dec 29 with 1023 views | BillyChong |
| Swans shareholder interview on 14:39 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust based on accounts paid legal fees of around £400,000 from what i can determine. Their biggest investment in anything to date. A West acres house for the club to accommodate football people would have been better perhaps bringing in a rental income with house price growth.
They were negotiating an hybrid 'no win no fee' deal with their advisors / funders. According to the Trust themselves the fees were very high. I called them "eye watering". They wanted more than 50% recovered from the other owners / previous sellers.
A win of £21m would see around £11m heading east into the pockets of third parties.
Silverstein and the Levien group put around £13m into the Convertible loan note. Once they did this the Trust plan was over as some of the loan note (a dept to the club would land an £8-9m repayment notice on Mr Winters table).
The club would have to return the note to the loanees to help pay the Trusts legal bills. This meant the Trust could not argue the the case would not harm the club. The legal case would have devastated the club. You can be sure all responsibility for a real 'fire sale' would be directed at the SCST in that event.
You seem to be struggling with this. |
How much have the yanks spent on interest (reported at 6-7%) from kangaroo loans against outgoing players? The first case of this dates back to 2017. What about the 5% on Silverstein’s loan? | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 18:54 - Dec 29 with 997 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 18:17 - Dec 29 by BillyChong |
How much have the yanks spent on interest (reported at 6-7%) from kangaroo loans against outgoing players? The first case of this dates back to 2017. What about the 5% on Silverstein’s loan? |
You are confused comparing two completely different things.
The McQuarrie loans were to help the club iron out the cash flow I would imagine. Big cheques are coming in and going out all the time. The loan was to enable payment on time with out having to wait for a big cheque of £5m to come in. Missed salary payment are always the first indication of clubs being in financial trouble. (they cannot get bridging loans).
The money the Trust paid was for a case than thankfully never happened. I am repeatedly pointing out the Trust are the servants of the banks and legal people up to this point in the 20 years that followed their good work in 2002. This remains their biggest investment. The members can do a whole better than this.
I would never recommend people do not join and pay £10. I would recommend they ask what is this money for? and how is it protected against inflationary devaluation?. I seems to me the SCST takes £10 and turns in an asset worth £9 within 18 month. What is the point? | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 18:55 - Dec 29 with 999 views | shaggyrogers |
| Swans shareholder interview on 15:19 - Dec 29 by SullutaCreturned |
How do you know so much about the "no win no fee" deal? Where is your source or are you "speculating" again?
The rest about the trust is the same old baiting codswallop you always spout.
The trust board were elected and went against the memberships wishes which is a stated fact and you know that so why spread lies constantly?
You seem to think that one saying bad things about 1000 is acceptable but 100 saying things about you is wrong, maybe it's just a sign that you are wrong? Consider it. The evidence says you are wrong. |
There was alot said about ' the no win no fee ' deal and if i recollect the Trust were nervous of doing it as even if they won they wouldn't have ended up with anywhere near what the shares were worth. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 19:25 - Dec 29 with 972 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:34 - Dec 29 by onehunglow |
Think I am guilty of that .
Dimwit ,however, not having that .
Tedious ,puritanical, Possibly.
Res makes some good points and also some horrific ones .
I’m not a valley man though and always seen them as rather “ backward”. ( no offence) |
You are a loved senior statesman type figure on here. We all accept you can say questionable things others cannot. It is probably too complex to understand why. You presumably been doing for three decades or more. It has a heritage and nostalgia.
You infer I am backward due to my humble origins while you have seen daylight in the sunny Wirral. It seems 40 years out of date to me as well as laughable.
I try to bring a new line of thinking and fresh ideas and as such treated with caution. I did not call any individual the 'd' word. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans shareholder interview on 13:38 - Dec 30 with 897 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:43 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Chief. I have been warned by the Moderator not to call people 'dimwits'. So i will not.
I have called out the Members of the Trust for their very poor administration of that organisation. They paid their £10 and then had a duty to do the best for the club. They in effect became owners and their voice was heard in the boardroom.
As such they had to be responsible and act in the interests of the club. Having taken on leadership role they became fair game for criticism. In debating the right and wrong of the behaviour of the SCST only the Chief engaged and he had no satisfactory answers.
I contest the membership of the Trust are not sufficiently sophisticated and business savvy to carry a ownership role in the club. Their performance has been dismal. The reasons for this is the members did not engage and did not analyse. They were coasting.
When I started debating members on here offered nothing. Only the Chief. |
There were more than just Chief calling you wrong and I was one of them.
The membership of the trust did not administer anything, they elected the board who then ran the trust. When the board changed more recently they shafted the membership by going against their wishes so the membership share no blame, none.
It is not the membership of the trust that has failed, it is the board whom the membership put their faith in. Such is the way in any elected body, the electorate make their choice and hope for the best.
PS, the membership were given a vote, they chose to take the legal route that you ridicule and the board over ruled them, went a different way and you ridicule that too. yet you don't ridicule our owners for years of bad decisions, instead you ridicule those who work for them whom the owners appointed, there's a pattern there, blame everybody except for the owners.
Our owners would look on you favourably because you are part of a diminishing flock, they like sheep like you who blame the workers but never the bosses. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:08 - Dec 30 with 841 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 13:38 - Dec 30 by SullutaCreturned |
There were more than just Chief calling you wrong and I was one of them.
The membership of the trust did not administer anything, they elected the board who then ran the trust. When the board changed more recently they shafted the membership by going against their wishes so the membership share no blame, none.
It is not the membership of the trust that has failed, it is the board whom the membership put their faith in. Such is the way in any elected body, the electorate make their choice and hope for the best.
PS, the membership were given a vote, they chose to take the legal route that you ridicule and the board over ruled them, went a different way and you ridicule that too. yet you don't ridicule our owners for years of bad decisions, instead you ridicule those who work for them whom the owners appointed, there's a pattern there, blame everybody except for the owners.
Our owners would look on you favourably because you are part of a diminishing flock, they like sheep like you who blame the workers but never the bosses. |
Ah the Chief. He was pretty much wrong abut everything he wrote. Being in a majority means not a lot.
The wishes of the membership of the Trust was in my opinion "bonkers" and based on a fake narrative. "The ship is sinking lets get out our money". "The money should never been in the Purser's safe in the first place "
You have been subjected to this fake narrative and cannot deviate from it. It is ingrained in your soul. A form of propaganda. The new board of the Trust are sensible and gave the members the bad news. No one would lend them the money to chase this fake narrative to the bitter end.
What the member wanted could not be afforded by funding people who perhaps wanted a big Trust contribution. They could have course asked the members for a one off £500 payment each to fund the legal war chest. An extra £500k or so to go to court. (good luck with that one)
They decided that was not feasible and surrender was better. The members wanted to go to war with borrowed money not their money. I do not have a lot of time for the members. | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:13 - Dec 30 with 838 views | QJumpingJack |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:08 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Ah the Chief. He was pretty much wrong abut everything he wrote. Being in a majority means not a lot.
The wishes of the membership of the Trust was in my opinion "bonkers" and based on a fake narrative. "The ship is sinking lets get out our money". "The money should never been in the Purser's safe in the first place "
You have been subjected to this fake narrative and cannot deviate from it. It is ingrained in your soul. A form of propaganda. The new board of the Trust are sensible and gave the members the bad news. No one would lend them the money to chase this fake narrative to the bitter end.
What the member wanted could not be afforded by funding people who perhaps wanted a big Trust contribution. They could have course asked the members for a one off £500 payment each to fund the legal war chest. An extra £500k or so to go to court. (good luck with that one)
They decided that was not feasible and surrender was better. The members wanted to go to war with borrowed money not their money. I do not have a lot of time for the members. |
Lets get back to the actual video.
Have Levien, Kaplan and Coleman taken action against the shareholder.
It is so unprofessional. It needs dealing wih. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:27 - Dec 30 with 830 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:13 - Dec 30 by QJumpingJack |
Lets get back to the actual video.
Have Levien, Kaplan and Coleman taken action against the shareholder.
It is so unprofessional. It needs dealing wih. |
There is free speech in the USA. He can say what he like. There is free speech in the UK as well. If they speak to him he will tell them to politely 'eff' off or give him some money to shut up.
You do not seem to understand how the world spins. You should see the clip as amusing like I do. His money has been used to fund the club. The 12% has not given a bean since 2002. | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:34 - Dec 30 with 830 views | BillyChong |
| Swans shareholder interview on 18:54 - Dec 29 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are confused comparing two completely different things.
The McQuarrie loans were to help the club iron out the cash flow I would imagine. Big cheques are coming in and going out all the time. The loan was to enable payment on time with out having to wait for a big cheque of £5m to come in. Missed salary payment are always the first indication of clubs being in financial trouble. (they cannot get bridging loans).
The money the Trust paid was for a case than thankfully never happened. I am repeatedly pointing out the Trust are the servants of the banks and legal people up to this point in the 20 years that followed their good work in 2002. This remains their biggest investment. The members can do a whole better than this.
I would never recommend people do not join and pay £10. I would recommend they ask what is this money for? and how is it protected against inflationary devaluation?. I seems to me the SCST takes £10 and turns in an asset worth £9 within 18 month. What is the point? |
They owners have taken loans out way above that one £5m figure. All with interest charges.
I am pointing out that the owners are the servants of finance companies and investors. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:40 - Dec 30 with 825 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:34 - Dec 30 by BillyChong |
They owners have taken loans out way above that one £5m figure. All with interest charges.
I am pointing out that the owners are the servants of finance companies and investors. |
This is bog standard banking services to help the organisation function properly. | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:53 - Dec 30 with 816 views | BillyChong |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:40 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is bog standard banking services to help the organisation function properly. |
Owners with ‘deep pockets’ would provide an interest free loan themselves | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:13 - Dec 30 with 797 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:53 - Dec 30 by BillyChong |
Owners with ‘deep pockets’ would provide an interest free loan themselves |
They are football investors not a banking firm. They gave Birch or Winter a budget and he has to stick to it. The ensure all creditors are paid on time he takes an advance on incoming transfer money and TV rights.
The US people pay their bills. Local traders will be concerned at fans telling them to get out of town. | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:23 - Dec 30 with 786 views | swan_si |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:13 - Dec 30 by QJumpingJack |
Lets get back to the actual video.
Have Levien, Kaplan and Coleman taken action against the shareholder.
It is so unprofessional. It needs dealing wih. |
He uses the word " stinks" to describe the MLS in another video, when we play bad we use terms like rubbish, shite, crap and various other insulting words. This guy is loud and annoying it's how he makes his money, he wouldn't give a flying duck if he was dragged over the coals for this. |  | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 19:53 - Dec 30 with 742 views | BillyChong |
| Swans shareholder interview on 17:13 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
They are football investors not a banking firm. They gave Birch or Winter a budget and he has to stick to it. The ensure all creditors are paid on time he takes an advance on incoming transfer money and TV rights.
The US people pay their bills. Local traders will be concerned at fans telling them to get out of town. |
Nonsense. Plenty of owners have loaned their clubs money minus interest, rather than become servants of the kangaroo banks etc. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 20:28 - Dec 30 with 726 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 19:53 - Dec 30 by BillyChong |
Nonsense. Plenty of owners have loaned their clubs money minus interest, rather than become servants of the kangaroo banks etc. |
It is their money not yours. How they use their money is not something you need to worry about. Are you going to tell them what shirt to buy in the sales? | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 21:36 - Dec 30 with 700 views | BillyChong |
| Swans shareholder interview on 20:28 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is their money not yours. How they use their money is not something you need to worry about. Are you going to tell them what shirt to buy in the sales? |
The Trusts money isn’t yours yet you are obsessed enough to sidetrack every non related thread to waffle on about it | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 21:41 - Dec 30 with 692 views | QJumpingJack |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:27 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is free speech in the USA. He can say what he like. There is free speech in the UK as well. If they speak to him he will tell them to politely 'eff' off or give him some money to shut up.
You do not seem to understand how the world spins. You should see the clip as amusing like I do. His money has been used to fund the club. The 12% has not given a bean since 2002. |
here is a thought. Instead of all the confusing and misleading statements about the Trust - have you spoken to the people who ran the Trust in the years you keep posting about? Maybe speak to them directly and ask for their version of events. It may help you and this site. | | | |
| Swans shareholder interview on 21:43 - Dec 30 with 687 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Swans shareholder interview on 21:36 - Dec 30 by BillyChong |
The Trusts money isn’t yours yet you are obsessed enough to sidetrack every non related thread to waffle on about it |
The Trust wanted to take £23m from the owners take £9m for themselves and give £11m to third parties with £2-3m in costs. I was suggesting the Trust was not operating in the best interests of the club. | |
| |
| Swans shareholder interview on 21:54 - Dec 30 with 675 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Swans shareholder interview on 16:08 - Dec 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Ah the Chief. He was pretty much wrong abut everything he wrote. Being in a majority means not a lot.
The wishes of the membership of the Trust was in my opinion "bonkers" and based on a fake narrative. "The ship is sinking lets get out our money". "The money should never been in the Purser's safe in the first place "
You have been subjected to this fake narrative and cannot deviate from it. It is ingrained in your soul. A form of propaganda. The new board of the Trust are sensible and gave the members the bad news. No one would lend them the money to chase this fake narrative to the bitter end.
What the member wanted could not be afforded by funding people who perhaps wanted a big Trust contribution. They could have course asked the members for a one off £500 payment each to fund the legal war chest. An extra £500k or so to go to court. (good luck with that one)
They decided that was not feasible and surrender was better. The members wanted to go to war with borrowed money not their money. I do not have a lot of time for the members. |
The members wanted their money in the bank so it could be used to save the club, if needed. The fake narrative is all yours, yet again.
What the members wanted, right or wrong, was what should have happened but the current board allegedly sold out. The members didn't surrender, the noard did.
Propaganda is what you constantly spout on here, even when you contradict yourself. You make more dodgy assumptions and spread outright nonsense in attempts to defend the owners no matter what.
What evidence do you have that the lawyers wanted a massive share of any winnings? You have repeated this claim, unless you can back it up with evidemce perhaps you should stop saying it? You put perhaps in front of it because you don't have any evdence it is just another lie you put in to try and back up your point of view, your narrative, your propaganda, and I back that up with if it was no win no fee then why had the trust already paid out 400k in fees? Something which you yourself have posted. [Post edited 30 Dec 2023 21:56]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
