| American Investors 22:18 - Oct 28 with 13368 views | Jock_The_Jack |
Back in town this weekend apparently!? |  | | |  |
| American Investors on 10:45 - Oct 30 with 1950 views | waynekerr55 |
| American Investors on 10:15 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
Absolutely. What's important to me is that we have the best possible people owning and running the club. I could well envisage a scenario where the current shareholders can't give the club the proper focus and pass it on to family members etc, and that may not be in the best interests of the club. I'm not against new blood per se, more of case of making sure people with the right intentions are installed. |
Well if recent "family" appointments are anything to go by  |  |
| |
| American Investors on 10:46 - Oct 30 with 1950 views | whiterock |
| American Investors on 10:15 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
Absolutely. What's important to me is that we have the best possible people owning and running the club. I could well envisage a scenario where the current shareholders can't give the club the proper focus and pass it on to family members etc, and that may not be in the best interests of the club. I'm not against new blood per se, more of case of making sure people with the right intentions are installed. |
family members might not be a good idea, outsiders, from America, Russia, Middle East or Asia don't seem acceptable either so we continue with the status quo for as long as possible but take it as read, these guys won't go on for ever, they've had their heads turned once. |  | | |
| American Investors on 10:59 - Oct 30 with 1934 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 10:45 - Oct 30 by waynekerr55 |
Well if recent "family" appointments are anything to go by |
I'm not even sure that's actually true, if it's the one I think you mean. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 13:11 - Oct 30 with 1848 views | Davillin |
| American Investors on 18:48 - Oct 29 by Uxbridge |
I can't find that scenario on Dav's website. Are you sure it's accurate
Must admit my answer was more in response to our club's current approach to divi's rather their potential abuse. Even then, I'm not sure how Dav could think taking £4m out of the club for no reason other than to fatten the bank accounts of the shareholders could be seen as a good thing for the club. It's not as if it discouraged them from selling to the first one who fluttered their eyelashes.
It's not a bad thing for the shareholders of course, and there's a decent argument to say it's been very good for the Trust for example. |
I did not say or imply that "taking £4m out of the club for no reason other than to fatten the bank accounts of the shareholders could be seen as a good thing for the club."
I was merely responding to the linked post that seemed to equate asset stripping with paying dividends to shareholders. Asset stripping is also "good" for the asset strippers, if I follow your logic. However, it is not "good" in general, either legally or morally.
I'm sure you will agree with me that paying dividends might in certain situations be unfair to some parties, but it is not "bad" in and of itself. In Swansea's case, no-one is hurt legally. Supporters were hurt, let's say "morally."
[p.s. I was and am not happy at the Swansea shareholders paying themselves any dividends beyond perhaps the amount they paid in to buy the shares, plus interest.] |  |
| |
| American Investors on 13:28 - Oct 30 with 1831 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 13:11 - Oct 30 by Davillin |
I did not say or imply that "taking £4m out of the club for no reason other than to fatten the bank accounts of the shareholders could be seen as a good thing for the club."
I was merely responding to the linked post that seemed to equate asset stripping with paying dividends to shareholders. Asset stripping is also "good" for the asset strippers, if I follow your logic. However, it is not "good" in general, either legally or morally.
I'm sure you will agree with me that paying dividends might in certain situations be unfair to some parties, but it is not "bad" in and of itself. In Swansea's case, no-one is hurt legally. Supporters were hurt, let's say "morally."
[p.s. I was and am not happy at the Swansea shareholders paying themselves any dividends beyond perhaps the amount they paid in to buy the shares, plus interest.] |
To be honest I think you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole that didn't need to be dug in the first place.
Dividends are a form of taking assets (cash) out of the business. It's hardly liquidating the company but it's a sliding scale. If Shaky was around he'd be quoting Modigliani and Miller back at me right about now, but it's irrelevant in this case ... this isn't a perfect world, the shares aren't quoted on the market etc. You could however argue that they are fair recompense for the risk incurred by some of the shareholders who ploughed their money in during the dark days, and i have some sympathy for that view ... at least the initial payments.
However, as a fan and thus a stakeholder in the club at least, I don't see any benefit to the club in paying a dividend. I don't see what legally has to do with it ... nothing here has been illegal, and morality is entirely subjective. I wouldn't define bad in terms of what is legally or morally right, I'd view it in terms of what I see as the long term goals of the club. | |
| |
| American Investors on 15:14 - Oct 30 with 1767 views | perchrockjack |
It's also a thread that s led to some heavy Shute being chucked. | |
| |
| American Investors on 15:25 - Oct 30 with 1754 views | waynekerr55 |
| American Investors on 15:14 - Oct 30 by perchrockjack |
It's also a thread that s led to some heavy Shute being chucked. |
Perchie my comrade, I think the main thing that needs to come out is that we must all be fully paid up members of the trust.
Let's be honest, unless it's a sheik or an oilgarch then they are hardly 'investing' for the fun of it. A juicy new pay deal, guaranteed parachute payments and potentially another asset on the books if the stadium is bought. | |
| |
| American Investors on 15:31 - Oct 30 with 1749 views | perchrockjack |
Agreed Wayne whether we hints one game or all of them.
Anyway, I'm all set for Liverpool Chelsea swansea arse and then second half of rugby.tomorrow early start for ado game
Girls sadly off to Amsterdam for the day but lady p ,i know, would rather see me annoy the holyshute out of arse fans in The Hague | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| American Investors on 15:41 - Oct 30 with 1732 views | Davillin |
| American Investors on 13:28 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
To be honest I think you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole that didn't need to be dug in the first place.
Dividends are a form of taking assets (cash) out of the business. It's hardly liquidating the company but it's a sliding scale. If Shaky was around he'd be quoting Modigliani and Miller back at me right about now, but it's irrelevant in this case ... this isn't a perfect world, the shares aren't quoted on the market etc. You could however argue that they are fair recompense for the risk incurred by some of the shareholders who ploughed their money in during the dark days, and i have some sympathy for that view ... at least the initial payments.
However, as a fan and thus a stakeholder in the club at least, I don't see any benefit to the club in paying a dividend. I don't see what legally has to do with it ... nothing here has been illegal, and morality is entirely subjective. I wouldn't define bad in terms of what is legally or morally right, I'd view it in terms of what I see as the long term goals of the club. |
"To be honest," I think you and I are, and have been from the beginning, in basic agreement on this matter. Perhaps dueling definitions [or in my case, inapt definitions] are to blame.
Thanks for your patience and courtesy. | |
| |
| American Investors on 16:01 - Oct 30 with 1703 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 15:41 - Oct 30 by Davillin |
"To be honest," I think you and I are, and have been from the beginning, in basic agreement on this matter. Perhaps dueling definitions [or in my case, inapt definitions] are to blame.
Thanks for your patience and courtesy. |
You may be right old chap. You may be right. | |
| |
| American Investors on 16:37 - Oct 30 with 1666 views | tomdickharry |
This thread would be thrown out of court "where is the evidence",save your energies for when it happens. | | | |
| American Investors on 16:40 - Oct 30 with 1661 views | perchrockjack |
| American Investors on 16:01 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
You may be right old chap. You may be right. |
Good interaction between ux and dav.
...and to think some wanted dav banned.
What makes a good debate is respect, Innit.
I bought two books here today just to blend in with the general air of erudition.
Saw the queen too. Looked like she was off to lidl. | |
| |
| American Investors on 16:43 - Oct 30 with 1654 views | waynekerr55 |
| American Investors on 16:40 - Oct 30 by perchrockjack |
Good interaction between ux and dav.
...and to think some wanted dav banned.
What makes a good debate is respect, Innit.
I bought two books here today just to blend in with the general air of erudition.
Saw the queen too. Looked like she was off to lidl. |
Well I was frankly upset - all the £99 Dyson DC30's were hoovered up before I had the chance to pounce on one in Aldi... | |
| |
| American Investors on 22:32 - Oct 30 with 1547 views | perchrockjack |
Is the term, old chap, patronising,disrespectful, ageist or simply vacuous or utter drivel.
Almost as bad as...young man, which really got my goat | |
| |
| American Investors on 09:25 - Oct 31 with 1464 views | Nookiejack |
When Financial Fair Play (FFP) was introduced I thought that essentially guaranteed our PL status indefinitely - as it would take too much time for promoted Championship sides to build competitive PL squads.
With the relaxation of FFP and also with relative ease which promoted Chamiponship sides like Leicester, Watford, Southampton have been able to gain foothold then move up league - now think PL is incredibly competitive and no guarantees anymore.
You have the top 6 teams with billionaire backers/very large fan bases (Man City, Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs). Then add Everton and West Ham (moving into Olympic stadium with associated increase in revenue and I understand paying relatively inexpensive rent for stadium). These top 8 teams generate year in year out at least £20m more revenue than we do. (Even with Shared TV rights). Which equates to additional 2 X £10m players each year and 8 X £10m over 4 year contract cycle.
So realistically we are in a league of remaining 12 teams and only need to be in bottom 3 (bottom 25%) for our shareholders to lose a lot of money.
A number of studies have shown strong correlation between a clubs wage bill and finishing PL position. The higher wage bill normally means higher finishing position.
We have been seriously punching above our weight and should never take for granted what club has achieved over last few seasons.
The key thing to our future success is probably getting future recruitment of goal scorers right - as per Michu and Bony. Also Ayew looks like he could be on way to achieving what they achieved for us.
We have to get a return from the outlay we spend on goal scorers - whereas big clubs can afford to buy another few £10m+ strikers if get it wrong or existing ones lose form - suffer serious injury.
Look at Bournemouth this season - they looked competitive but then lost their top goal scorers of serious injury. A top club can just go back into the market.
I rate us about 14th in PL on current form and thank goodness massive fan base clubs like Newcastle, Sundeland and Villa can't get their act together.
I would be getting a bit edgy if I was an existing shareholder - stay up for one more season with associated massive increase in TV revenue - would probably then be a good time to sell. | | | |
| American Investors on 09:31 - Oct 31 with 1452 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 09:25 - Oct 31 by Nookiejack |
When Financial Fair Play (FFP) was introduced I thought that essentially guaranteed our PL status indefinitely - as it would take too much time for promoted Championship sides to build competitive PL squads.
With the relaxation of FFP and also with relative ease which promoted Chamiponship sides like Leicester, Watford, Southampton have been able to gain foothold then move up league - now think PL is incredibly competitive and no guarantees anymore.
You have the top 6 teams with billionaire backers/very large fan bases (Man City, Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs). Then add Everton and West Ham (moving into Olympic stadium with associated increase in revenue and I understand paying relatively inexpensive rent for stadium). These top 8 teams generate year in year out at least £20m more revenue than we do. (Even with Shared TV rights). Which equates to additional 2 X £10m players each year and 8 X £10m over 4 year contract cycle.
So realistically we are in a league of remaining 12 teams and only need to be in bottom 3 (bottom 25%) for our shareholders to lose a lot of money.
A number of studies have shown strong correlation between a clubs wage bill and finishing PL position. The higher wage bill normally means higher finishing position.
We have been seriously punching above our weight and should never take for granted what club has achieved over last few seasons.
The key thing to our future success is probably getting future recruitment of goal scorers right - as per Michu and Bony. Also Ayew looks like he could be on way to achieving what they achieved for us.
We have to get a return from the outlay we spend on goal scorers - whereas big clubs can afford to buy another few £10m+ strikers if get it wrong or existing ones lose form - suffer serious injury.
Look at Bournemouth this season - they looked competitive but then lost their top goal scorers of serious injury. A top club can just go back into the market.
I rate us about 14th in PL on current form and thank goodness massive fan base clubs like Newcastle, Sundeland and Villa can't get their act together.
I would be getting a bit edgy if I was an existing shareholder - stay up for one more season with associated massive increase in TV revenue - would probably then be a good time to sell. |
Interesting last paragraph I have to admit and one which I would agree with totally if the shareholders were purely in it for the money |  | | |
| American Investors on 09:47 - Oct 31 with 1440 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 09:30 - Oct 30 by waynekerr55 |
Uhhh...
TV deal and Baseball spring to mind?
Lay off the crystal meth pal 😜 |
It's no point you laying off the drugs - you're to far gone.
Let's say someone was to buy the Swans for £120 million - you don't spend that sort of money to asset strip, what would the point be. If you spend that sort of money, you'll be hell bent on making sure that money was looked after and the only way you could do that in PL football is to make sure the club remains in the PL. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 09:53 - Oct 31 with 1435 views | monmouth |
| American Investors on 09:31 - Oct 31 by Phil_S |
Interesting last paragraph I have to admit and one which I would agree with totally if the shareholders were purely in it for the money |
Or to be honest Phil, if they were 'normal' in human terms these days. I would just like some honesty. They can admit their greed, I can relate to it as I'm not sure how I'd react in their position, but they can't keep up their pretence of 'fans first and foremost' and 'Swansea heroes' at the same time. Take the money but expect derision and brickbats frm folk like us from then on. Possibly they aren't homogenous either? I've always had a feeling rightly or wrongly that HJ is more torn by this than most others. Obviously, I don't expect a comment from you on that!
Anyway, anyone seen these phantom yanks? |  |
| |
| American Investors on 09:57 - Oct 31 with 1428 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 09:53 - Oct 31 by monmouth |
Or to be honest Phil, if they were 'normal' in human terms these days. I would just like some honesty. They can admit their greed, I can relate to it as I'm not sure how I'd react in their position, but they can't keep up their pretence of 'fans first and foremost' and 'Swansea heroes' at the same time. Take the money but expect derision and brickbats frm folk like us from then on. Possibly they aren't homogenous either? I've always had a feeling rightly or wrongly that HJ is more torn by this than most others. Obviously, I don't expect a comment from you on that!
Anyway, anyone seen these phantom yanks? |
More paranoia i see. | |
| |
| American Investors on 09:58 - Oct 31 with 1425 views | waynekerr55 |
| American Investors on 09:47 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
It's no point you laying off the drugs - you're to far gone.
Let's say someone was to buy the Swans for £120 million - you don't spend that sort of money to asset strip, what would the point be. If you spend that sort of money, you'll be hell bent on making sure that money was looked after and the only way you could do that in PL football is to make sure the club remains in the PL. |
What, like Vincent Tan and Cardiff? The Venky's and Blackburn? | |
| |
| American Investors on 10:04 - Oct 31 with 1413 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 09:58 - Oct 31 by waynekerr55 |
What, like Vincent Tan and Cardiff? The Venky's and Blackburn? |
Yes and they fooked it right up and will never get their money back. Tan was on an ego trip. Most poeple who invest £100 million for example to get a return, didn't come over on the last banana boat and would want that club / business to succeed - that way they stand more of a change of making a return on their investment. | |
| |
| American Investors on 10:09 - Oct 31 with 1409 views | johnlangy |
| American Investors on 09:53 - Oct 31 by monmouth |
Or to be honest Phil, if they were 'normal' in human terms these days. I would just like some honesty. They can admit their greed, I can relate to it as I'm not sure how I'd react in their position, but they can't keep up their pretence of 'fans first and foremost' and 'Swansea heroes' at the same time. Take the money but expect derision and brickbats frm folk like us from then on. Possibly they aren't homogenous either? I've always had a feeling rightly or wrongly that HJ is more torn by this than most others. Obviously, I don't expect a comment from you on that!
Anyway, anyone seen these phantom yanks? |
The magical 25% is the key.
If there is another divi this year the Trust will have around £1 million in the Bank. If the shareholders agreed to sell the extra 5% to the Trust for that million they'd make far more in that one transaction than they paid in initially, they'd still have a lot of shares that would also still be worth a fortune in most people's eyes and as long as we are in the PL they could still have a yearly divi and most people, I imagine, would be okay with that knowing that the Club is then safe from speculators.
In the long run, especially if we stay in the PL, all of that MAY amount to more than they might get for a one off cashing in to the highest bidder. If they are seen to cash in at the expense of OUR Club (betray is the word we would use if it all went t*ts up) would it really be worth it for them ? They'd have to be extremely thick skinned to cope with the hatred that would be directed toward them. | | | |
| American Investors on 10:11 - Oct 31 with 1404 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 10:09 - Oct 31 by johnlangy |
The magical 25% is the key.
If there is another divi this year the Trust will have around £1 million in the Bank. If the shareholders agreed to sell the extra 5% to the Trust for that million they'd make far more in that one transaction than they paid in initially, they'd still have a lot of shares that would also still be worth a fortune in most people's eyes and as long as we are in the PL they could still have a yearly divi and most people, I imagine, would be okay with that knowing that the Club is then safe from speculators.
In the long run, especially if we stay in the PL, all of that MAY amount to more than they might get for a one off cashing in to the highest bidder. If they are seen to cash in at the expense of OUR Club (betray is the word we would use if it all went t*ts up) would it really be worth it for them ? They'd have to be extremely thick skinned to cope with the hatred that would be directed toward them. |
The shareholders will not sell to the trust - how many times has this got to be said, before it sinks in ?. | |
| |
| American Investors on 10:17 - Oct 31 with 1394 views | waynekerr55 |
| American Investors on 10:04 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
Yes and they fooked it right up and will never get their money back. Tan was on an ego trip. Most poeple who invest £100 million for example to get a return, didn't come over on the last banana boat and would want that club / business to succeed - that way they stand more of a change of making a return on their investment. |
Randy Lerner? Ellis Short? Hicks and Gillette.
Listen, I think me and you both want the same thing, that is us being successful. That said, I have real concerns that the shareholders were willing to sell to a complete shyster that has a record of sucking the blood out of sports teams for the benefit of himself. | |
| |
| American Investors on 10:23 - Oct 31 with 1390 views | longlostjack |
| American Investors on 10:04 - Oct 31 by dgt73 |
Yes and they fooked it right up and will never get their money back. Tan was on an ego trip. Most poeple who invest £100 million for example to get a return, didn't come over on the last banana boat and would want that club / business to succeed - that way they stand more of a change of making a return on their investment. |
Can you name a couple of investors who have invested upwards of a 100 million and seen a return on their investment ? I'm struggling- the Glazier brothers perhaps? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
