| Trust statement 20:05 - Jun 13 with 37954 views | Joe_bradshaw |
The court case is happening at last.
Thanks Joe, a little bit from me to everyone.
Hi folks, this is clearly a topic many enjoy commenting on, but please remain consistent in your responses avoiding potential slurs on any characters involved and remain objective.
Thanks ðŸ‘
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| Trust statement on 22:15 - Jun 17 with 1717 views | monmouth |
| Trust statement on 22:00 - Jun 17 by 3swan |
I wouldn't use the phrase 'bailed out ' as the money given was a loan and will have to be repaid or converted to shares. |
I wouldn’t bother. Bloke is a worthless shill parroting a line fed to him by vested interest.
Transparent. |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 22:18 - Jun 17 with 1710 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 21:39 - Jun 17 by majorraglan |
I think I read the legal costs couldn’t be burdened on the club, it could also be further evidence to support the Trust’s case. |
As I understand it the 68% owner of the club is called the:
Swansea Football LLC. As a company filed in Delaware.
Presumably if the buyers are held liable to court costs or awards it will go against this organisation.
The only people that can say the costs will not be paid for by the club at least indirectly are American shareholders. Anyone else's comments are inappropriate. The costs may not go directly to the club, but indirectly they will for sure. What you read was probably technically correct but in reality pretty meaningless as far as i can see. [Post edited 17 Jun 2021 22:21]
|  |
| |
| Trust statement on 23:04 - Jun 17 with 1642 views | majorraglan |
| Trust statement on 22:18 - Jun 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As I understand it the 68% owner of the club is called the:
Swansea Football LLC. As a company filed in Delaware.
Presumably if the buyers are held liable to court costs or awards it will go against this organisation.
The only people that can say the costs will not be paid for by the club at least indirectly are American shareholders. Anyone else's comments are inappropriate. The costs may not go directly to the club, but indirectly they will for sure. What you read was probably technically correct but in reality pretty meaningless as far as i can see. [Post edited 17 Jun 2021 22:21]
|
You may be right.
When there was a dispute between the Oystons and a shareholder in Blackpool over payments, a judge ruled in favour of the latter and eventually receivers were appointed so the shareholder could be fully compensated.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/feb/13/blackpool-receivership-sale-ris |  | | |
| Trust statement on 07:08 - Jun 18 with 1570 views | Chief |
This needs to be nipped in the bud. Read the trust's statement again. They were clear on this. No action is being taken against the football club, so nothing can be paid from its accounts.
I know the Americans could illegally embezzle some from the club to pay their personal bills but I read further up the thread that they're great guys so they're hardly likely to do that are they? |  |
| |
| Trust statement on 09:31 - Jun 18 with 1523 views | Thornburyswan |
| Trust statement on 07:08 - Jun 18 by Chief |
This needs to be nipped in the bud. Read the trust's statement again. They were clear on this. No action is being taken against the football club, so nothing can be paid from its accounts.
I know the Americans could illegally embezzle some from the club to pay their personal bills but I read further up the thread that they're great guys so they're hardly likely to do that are they? |
Broadly correct Chief but not absolute, in the circumstances of a Trust win in court & getting say circa £20M for their shares plus legal costs against the sell-outs & Americans then those individuals could collect increased wages, management fees & dividends from the club if the funds are their to do that to raise the funds to contribute to that payment.
That said these type of cases can drag on & verdicts appealed so unlikely to direct impact the coming season. | | | |
| Trust statement on 10:25 - Jun 18 with 1512 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 22:18 - Jun 17 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As I understand it the 68% owner of the club is called the:
Swansea Football LLC. As a company filed in Delaware.
Presumably if the buyers are held liable to court costs or awards it will go against this organisation.
The only people that can say the costs will not be paid for by the club at least indirectly are American shareholders. Anyone else's comments are inappropriate. The costs may not go directly to the club, but indirectly they will for sure. What you read was probably technically correct but in reality pretty meaningless as far as i can see. [Post edited 17 Jun 2021 22:21]
|
“The only people that can say the costs will not be paid for by the club at least indirectly are American shareholders. Anyone else's comments are inappropriate. The costs may not go directly to the club, but indirectly they will for sure“.
There are rules about how money can be extracted from a limited company. The company and its shareholders do not have fungible assets. Attempting to muddy the waters to influence people against the Trust in this matter when you quite clearly do not understand the issues is negligent at best. | | | |
| Trust statement on 10:32 - Jun 18 with 1502 views | Chief |
| Trust statement on 09:31 - Jun 18 by Thornburyswan |
Broadly correct Chief but not absolute, in the circumstances of a Trust win in court & getting say circa £20M for their shares plus legal costs against the sell-outs & Americans then those individuals could collect increased wages, management fees & dividends from the club if the funds are their to do that to raise the funds to contribute to that payment.
That said these type of cases can drag on & verdicts appealed so unlikely to direct impact the coming season. |
They could do that, but that would mean hindering and handicapping the success of an asset they paid £70ish mill buying which they could soon have an even larger interest in. If they cut us to the bone to pay themselves some fees through 'legal' routes they stand absolutely no chance of getting to the Premier league where they could probably get their outlay back. Which seems bad business sense surely.
How much could they realistically pay themselves in consultancy, management fees and dividends (which the company has to be making money to do)? £100mill for a club in the championship which could go down further is surely going to take an age to extract!?
I just can't see it being a viable option. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:27 - Jun 18 with 1462 views | Thornburyswan |
| Trust statement on 10:32 - Jun 18 by Chief |
They could do that, but that would mean hindering and handicapping the success of an asset they paid £70ish mill buying which they could soon have an even larger interest in. If they cut us to the bone to pay themselves some fees through 'legal' routes they stand absolutely no chance of getting to the Premier league where they could probably get their outlay back. Which seems bad business sense surely.
How much could they realistically pay themselves in consultancy, management fees and dividends (which the company has to be making money to do)? £100mill for a club in the championship which could go down further is surely going to take an age to extract!?
I just can't see it being a viable option. |
Fair points Chief & broadly agree - I guess if a combination of our current 27(?) owners plus the previous sell-outs mean there would be circa 33 people needing to raise a share of the approximately £20M + legal IF the Trust win of course. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust statement on 12:29 - Jun 18 with 1460 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 10:32 - Jun 18 by Chief |
They could do that, but that would mean hindering and handicapping the success of an asset they paid £70ish mill buying which they could soon have an even larger interest in. If they cut us to the bone to pay themselves some fees through 'legal' routes they stand absolutely no chance of getting to the Premier league where they could probably get their outlay back. Which seems bad business sense surely.
How much could they realistically pay themselves in consultancy, management fees and dividends (which the company has to be making money to do)? £100mill for a club in the championship which could go down further is surely going to take an age to extract!?
I just can't see it being a viable option. |
Any one suggesting an unexpected bill of around £22m for the parent company of a football club, will have no bearing on the football club is deluded. A Cardiff city fan if he wanted to harm Swansea city would say. "Hit the owners hard in the pocket". Man Utd fan activist want to do this to the Glazers.
Of couse it is not £22m but £14m as the Shares have a value of £8m or so.
Some people on one hand suggest the SCST need protection because the majority owners can very easily dilute their holding "to nothing" with a special resolution or two and a little bit of paperwork and investment. They then suggest on the other hand that extracting cash from the company that has cash is unrealistic. This is spin from the 'in house' team.
The US ownership group will recover the deficit one way or another as descibed by the Doctor P. That is just good business. The SCST supporters will say of course that promotion will immediately clear these debts and the US people will forget about them. This is probably true. They will in this case reflect they have just got £13m or so for an asset worth £40m in that case. Where will the difference £27m go? Thats easy. £8m to the funders a £19m to Uncle Sam. There is a very good chance of Swansea reaching the Premier leaue in the next 10 years in my opinion. Its a 12.5% chance on simple statistical basis every season.
[Post edited 18 Jun 2021 12:34]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:46 - Jun 18 with 1443 views | vetchonian |
| Trust statement on 12:29 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Any one suggesting an unexpected bill of around £22m for the parent company of a football club, will have no bearing on the football club is deluded. A Cardiff city fan if he wanted to harm Swansea city would say. "Hit the owners hard in the pocket". Man Utd fan activist want to do this to the Glazers.
Of couse it is not £22m but £14m as the Shares have a value of £8m or so.
Some people on one hand suggest the SCST need protection because the majority owners can very easily dilute their holding "to nothing" with a special resolution or two and a little bit of paperwork and investment. They then suggest on the other hand that extracting cash from the company that has cash is unrealistic. This is spin from the 'in house' team.
The US ownership group will recover the deficit one way or another as descibed by the Doctor P. That is just good business. The SCST supporters will say of course that promotion will immediately clear these debts and the US people will forget about them. This is probably true. They will in this case reflect they have just got £13m or so for an asset worth £40m in that case. Where will the difference £27m go? Thats easy. £8m to the funders a £19m to Uncle Sam. There is a very good chance of Swansea reaching the Premier leaue in the next 10 years in my opinion. Its a 12.5% chance on simple statistical basis every season.
[Post edited 18 Jun 2021 12:34]
|
Just think all of this could have been avoided if the sellouts had been open and transparent from the beginning.....maybe just maybe a more amenable outocme could have been established and this puppet from the Neath Valley would have nothing to say | |
| |
| Trust statement on 12:49 - Jun 18 with 1430 views | 3swan |
| Trust statement on 12:29 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Any one suggesting an unexpected bill of around £22m for the parent company of a football club, will have no bearing on the football club is deluded. A Cardiff city fan if he wanted to harm Swansea city would say. "Hit the owners hard in the pocket". Man Utd fan activist want to do this to the Glazers.
Of couse it is not £22m but £14m as the Shares have a value of £8m or so.
Some people on one hand suggest the SCST need protection because the majority owners can very easily dilute their holding "to nothing" with a special resolution or two and a little bit of paperwork and investment. They then suggest on the other hand that extracting cash from the company that has cash is unrealistic. This is spin from the 'in house' team.
The US ownership group will recover the deficit one way or another as descibed by the Doctor P. That is just good business. The SCST supporters will say of course that promotion will immediately clear these debts and the US people will forget about them. This is probably true. They will in this case reflect they have just got £13m or so for an asset worth £40m in that case. Where will the difference £27m go? Thats easy. £8m to the funders a £19m to Uncle Sam. There is a very good chance of Swansea reaching the Premier leaue in the next 10 years in my opinion. Its a 12.5% chance on simple statistical basis every season.
[Post edited 18 Jun 2021 12:34]
|
Using simple statistical basis there is also a 12.5% chance of relegation every season . Who knows what tomorrow brings? | | | |
| Trust statement on 12:56 - Jun 18 with 1420 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 12:29 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Any one suggesting an unexpected bill of around £22m for the parent company of a football club, will have no bearing on the football club is deluded. A Cardiff city fan if he wanted to harm Swansea city would say. "Hit the owners hard in the pocket". Man Utd fan activist want to do this to the Glazers.
Of couse it is not £22m but £14m as the Shares have a value of £8m or so.
Some people on one hand suggest the SCST need protection because the majority owners can very easily dilute their holding "to nothing" with a special resolution or two and a little bit of paperwork and investment. They then suggest on the other hand that extracting cash from the company that has cash is unrealistic. This is spin from the 'in house' team.
The US ownership group will recover the deficit one way or another as descibed by the Doctor P. That is just good business. The SCST supporters will say of course that promotion will immediately clear these debts and the US people will forget about them. This is probably true. They will in this case reflect they have just got £13m or so for an asset worth £40m in that case. Where will the difference £27m go? Thats easy. £8m to the funders a £19m to Uncle Sam. There is a very good chance of Swansea reaching the Premier leaue in the next 10 years in my opinion. Its a 12.5% chance on simple statistical basis every season.
[Post edited 18 Jun 2021 12:34]
|
“ Some people on one hand suggest the SCST need protection because the majority owners can very easily dilute their holding "to nothing" with a special resolution or two and a little bit of paperwork and investment. They then suggest on the other hand that extracting cash from the company that has cash is unrealistic. This is spin from the 'in house' team. ”
It’s not spin. It’s to do with company law. What is allowed and what isn’t. A company is allowed to issue shares. It is not allowed to pay dividends if it does not have sufficient retained earnings. That’s a little simplistic but I daren’t get more complicated as you appear to be struggling a little with the concepts.
You appear to be suggesting, therefore, that you believe the majority owner will break the law.
Wow.
As an aside, I’m glad that you think the company has lots of cash. That’s excellent news. It could pay off those convertible loans and avoid interest payments or dilution of the minority.
How do you work out the £8m or so value of the Trust’s shares btw? | | | |
| Trust statement on 13:00 - Jun 18 with 1404 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 12:49 - Jun 18 by 3swan |
Using simple statistical basis there is also a 12.5% chance of relegation every season . Who knows what tomorrow brings? |
And what pray is the percentage for promotion to Prem League.
Seems the action or the Trust is to "protect" the club WHEN we get relegated. It is all we read here. NEGATIVE .
We are looking for disaster and wouldnt be happy until we get it-or so it seems.
One party against the other. Fan against fan. It really does stink and shame us.
I see resilient Res and lovely lisa trading forum blows both utterly supine in their arrogance a to what is the truth .We can't agree even on meetings and if they actually took place.
Ever thought how fans of other clubs viewing this site might perceive us . Not very well I would suggest.
So many experts amongst us all of whom were and are totally incapable of doing anything except shout from the sidelines.
A whole stinking sorry mess.
We're all damned | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:02 - Jun 18 with 1417 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 12:46 - Jun 18 by vetchonian |
Just think all of this could have been avoided if the sellouts had been open and transparent from the beginning.....maybe just maybe a more amenable outocme could have been established and this puppet from the Neath Valley would have nothing to say |
I suspect if the 'Sellers' had been open and transparent there would have been no sale and they would all be nursing big cash losses. There would be covid but no Convertable loan note to help out. The club would probably be league 1 with all players sold and no academy. The sale was in the best interests of the club in my opinion.
The SCST are well known for their rigourous "due dilligence" (thats what they call it). They did not believe at the time that the club needed different owners or any investment.
Please do not name call. I do not hold the SCST membership in high regard but do not name call. I am entitled to criticise the SCST actions which are most certainly controversial. Fans Trust suing the owners may be unprecidented. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:04 - Jun 18 with 1401 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 13:02 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suspect if the 'Sellers' had been open and transparent there would have been no sale and they would all be nursing big cash losses. There would be covid but no Convertable loan note to help out. The club would probably be league 1 with all players sold and no academy. The sale was in the best interests of the club in my opinion.
The SCST are well known for their rigourous "due dilligence" (thats what they call it). They did not believe at the time that the club needed different owners or any investment.
Please do not name call. I do not hold the SCST membership in high regard but do not name call. I am entitled to criticise the SCST actions which are most certainly controversial. Fans Trust suing the owners may be unprecidented. |
Indeed you are but an independent minded person like me sees just a mess and opposing sides simply locking horns. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:16 - Jun 18 with 1402 views | 3swan |
| Trust statement on 13:00 - Jun 18 by onehunglow |
And what pray is the percentage for promotion to Prem League.
Seems the action or the Trust is to "protect" the club WHEN we get relegated. It is all we read here. NEGATIVE .
We are looking for disaster and wouldnt be happy until we get it-or so it seems.
One party against the other. Fan against fan. It really does stink and shame us.
I see resilient Res and lovely lisa trading forum blows both utterly supine in their arrogance a to what is the truth .We can't agree even on meetings and if they actually took place.
Ever thought how fans of other clubs viewing this site might perceive us . Not very well I would suggest.
So many experts amongst us all of whom were and are totally incapable of doing anything except shout from the sidelines.
A whole stinking sorry mess.
We're all damned |
My response was to Res saying statistically we have a 12.5% chance of promotion every season. It's the same with relegation 3 out of 24 up or down. That wasn't being negative. As far as the Trust protecting the club it has been involved in doing that for over 20 years.. The only way it seems that continue is to have a nest egg not just if relegation comes but potentially as part of a buy out consortium [Post edited 18 Jun 2021 13:17]
| | | |
| Trust statement on 13:16 - Jun 18 with 1398 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 13:00 - Jun 18 by onehunglow |
And what pray is the percentage for promotion to Prem League.
Seems the action or the Trust is to "protect" the club WHEN we get relegated. It is all we read here. NEGATIVE .
We are looking for disaster and wouldnt be happy until we get it-or so it seems.
One party against the other. Fan against fan. It really does stink and shame us.
I see resilient Res and lovely lisa trading forum blows both utterly supine in their arrogance a to what is the truth .We can't agree even on meetings and if they actually took place.
Ever thought how fans of other clubs viewing this site might perceive us . Not very well I would suggest.
So many experts amongst us all of whom were and are totally incapable of doing anything except shout from the sidelines.
A whole stinking sorry mess.
We're all damned |
“ I see resilient Res and lovely lisa trading forum blows both utterly supine in their arrogance a to what is the truth .We can't agree even on meetings and if they actually took place. ”
What meetings did and didn’t take place and what actions have and haven’t been taken to try to sort out what you describe as a ‘stinking sorry mess’ are a matter of fact.
Somebody posting endlessly on here or elsewhere a different story in support of others does not change the facts. Or the ability to prove such facts.
Who cares what other fans think. Surely the future of our club is more important than that?
There is nothing negative about protecting the club in every eventuality. It’s sensible. If all goes from strength to strength then that’s the best possible outcome for all of us. But making sure that protections are in place for any scenario where that doesn’t happen at some point in the future is absolutely essential. Remember that this isn’t about what is happening NOW, but what COULD happen at any date in the future, under any possible ownership.
How much would you bet that the club will NEVER again find itself in difficulty at any time going forward? | | | |
| Trust statement on 13:26 - Jun 18 with 1390 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 12:56 - Jun 18 by londonlisa2001 |
“ Some people on one hand suggest the SCST need protection because the majority owners can very easily dilute their holding "to nothing" with a special resolution or two and a little bit of paperwork and investment. They then suggest on the other hand that extracting cash from the company that has cash is unrealistic. This is spin from the 'in house' team. ”
It’s not spin. It’s to do with company law. What is allowed and what isn’t. A company is allowed to issue shares. It is not allowed to pay dividends if it does not have sufficient retained earnings. That’s a little simplistic but I daren’t get more complicated as you appear to be struggling a little with the concepts.
You appear to be suggesting, therefore, that you believe the majority owner will break the law.
Wow.
As an aside, I’m glad that you think the company has lots of cash. That’s excellent news. It could pay off those convertible loans and avoid interest payments or dilution of the minority.
How do you work out the £8m or so value of the Trust’s shares btw? |
I believe the club has now go a grip of its finances and may be able to register profits. It also has player assets like Grimes, Roberts and Cabango under contract. It seems able at this moment to offer upto £5m for a striker. There seems interst in Grimes and Roberts is doing his valuation no harm at all in the Euros.
These three players alone could be worth £20m for your interest. Would their sale not represent "retained earnings "? I will have to look that one up but I expect they do.
There is also the possibility of a SCST supplement on season ticket charges for over 25 s for example. Swansea's season tickets are the joint lowest in the championship and a good example of cooperation with the SCST. Conflict will no doubt have the reverse effect. I reject entirely that the US owners would break the law. If I was an owner I certainly would apply a "ownership realignment" supplement.
I do not think the club has a lot of cash but it does have a lot of assets it can sell and 10,000 season ticket holdets it can extract money from it it is put in a corner by their elected representatives.
You quoted a hypothetical £40m in one of your examples. A ball park figure perhaps. 21% of £40m is £8.2m.
I respect your knowledge as a presumably chartered accountant but you are promoting a cause I do not support and articulating your knowledge selectively to support your argument. I also have concerns about the SCST plans for investment after a sucessfull court case and what measures they will take to 'protect' themselves from the effects of inflation. Perhaps as an expert you can enlighen me and the readership. [Post edited 18 Jun 2021 13:31]
| |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:37 - Jun 18 with 1367 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 13:26 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I believe the club has now go a grip of its finances and may be able to register profits. It also has player assets like Grimes, Roberts and Cabango under contract. It seems able at this moment to offer upto £5m for a striker. There seems interst in Grimes and Roberts is doing his valuation no harm at all in the Euros.
These three players alone could be worth £20m for your interest. Would their sale not represent "retained earnings "? I will have to look that one up but I expect they do.
There is also the possibility of a SCST supplement on season ticket charges for over 25 s for example. Swansea's season tickets are the joint lowest in the championship and a good example of cooperation with the SCST. Conflict will no doubt have the reverse effect. I reject entirely that the US owners would break the law. If I was an owner I certainly would apply a "ownership realignment" supplement.
I do not think the club has a lot of cash but it does have a lot of assets it can sell and 10,000 season ticket holdets it can extract money from it it is put in a corner by their elected representatives.
You quoted a hypothetical £40m in one of your examples. A ball park figure perhaps. 21% of £40m is £8.2m.
I respect your knowledge as a presumably chartered accountant but you are promoting a cause I do not support and articulating your knowledge selectively to support your argument. I also have concerns about the SCST plans for investment after a sucessfull court case and what measures they will take to 'protect' themselves from the effects of inflation. Perhaps as an expert you can enlighen me and the readership. [Post edited 18 Jun 2021 13:31]
|
"you two need to get together and maybe ,when venues are back ,sell tickets and the monies raised can go to our poverty stricken club". I quoted myself there to ave lia the trouble for future reference.
You stay classy though Res amongst us constant flow of abuse.
I don't imply believe anyone,as it happens,but It's entertaining watching you two at it,both wrapped up in the glow of your own egos. You both think you are right. You could both be wrong.
Given the back stabbing trend in our fanbase and the love of a good old bitchfest, It's no surprise the majority of fans have not a scooby as to what went on. Only those who WERE there know that and looking around ,I don't see that many ,if any,I would trust.
THAT is the sadness of it all. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:49 - Jun 18 with 1373 views | vetchonian |
| Trust statement on 13:02 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I suspect if the 'Sellers' had been open and transparent there would have been no sale and they would all be nursing big cash losses. There would be covid but no Convertable loan note to help out. The club would probably be league 1 with all players sold and no academy. The sale was in the best interests of the club in my opinion.
The SCST are well known for their rigourous "due dilligence" (thats what they call it). They did not believe at the time that the club needed different owners or any investment.
Please do not name call. I do not hold the SCST membership in high regard but do not name call. I am entitled to criticise the SCST actions which are most certainly controversial. Fans Trust suing the owners may be unprecidented. |
We will never know if that is the case. I have said before that perhaps if the managing shareholders had discussed the clubs situation in more detail with the Trust then diferent outcomes may have been possible. There is no gaurantee that the Trust would have opposed this sale..again if they had full possesion of all the facts then maybe who knows.
Again personal circumstances of certain shareholders no doubt contributed to the need to sell
I apologise if you see the use of the noun as name calling, I merely used it as it does often appear that someone else is pulling the strings.....We are all entitled to opinion and we all deserve respect and dignity .... | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:50 - Jun 18 with 1358 views | onehunglow |
| Trust statement on 13:49 - Jun 18 by vetchonian |
We will never know if that is the case. I have said before that perhaps if the managing shareholders had discussed the clubs situation in more detail with the Trust then diferent outcomes may have been possible. There is no gaurantee that the Trust would have opposed this sale..again if they had full possesion of all the facts then maybe who knows.
Again personal circumstances of certain shareholders no doubt contributed to the need to sell
I apologise if you see the use of the noun as name calling, I merely used it as it does often appear that someone else is pulling the strings.....We are all entitled to opinion and we all deserve respect and dignity .... |
Last sentence is bang on the money | |
| |
| Trust statement on 13:52 - Jun 18 with 1370 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 13:26 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I believe the club has now go a grip of its finances and may be able to register profits. It also has player assets like Grimes, Roberts and Cabango under contract. It seems able at this moment to offer upto £5m for a striker. There seems interst in Grimes and Roberts is doing his valuation no harm at all in the Euros.
These three players alone could be worth £20m for your interest. Would their sale not represent "retained earnings "? I will have to look that one up but I expect they do.
There is also the possibility of a SCST supplement on season ticket charges for over 25 s for example. Swansea's season tickets are the joint lowest in the championship and a good example of cooperation with the SCST. Conflict will no doubt have the reverse effect. I reject entirely that the US owners would break the law. If I was an owner I certainly would apply a "ownership realignment" supplement.
I do not think the club has a lot of cash but it does have a lot of assets it can sell and 10,000 season ticket holdets it can extract money from it it is put in a corner by their elected representatives.
You quoted a hypothetical £40m in one of your examples. A ball park figure perhaps. 21% of £40m is £8.2m.
I respect your knowledge as a presumably chartered accountant but you are promoting a cause I do not support and articulating your knowledge selectively to support your argument. I also have concerns about the SCST plans for investment after a sucessfull court case and what measures they will take to 'protect' themselves from the effects of inflation. Perhaps as an expert you can enlighen me and the readership. [Post edited 18 Jun 2021 13:31]
|
Interesting.
So you believe the owners would sell any player it could and whack up season ticket prices?
No. By the way. A sale of a player doesn’t represent retained earnings. It represents the sale of a player. If you sell a player for £5m that isn’t a £5m profit. Let alone £5m profit after tax.
It’s weird. On one hand you slag off the Trust’s investment policy, repeatedly for month after month after month (despite, by the way, having no idea what the rules are or are not), as though you are an expert, and on the other hand you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about accounting, or company law, or anything similar.
You ‘reject entirely’ that the owners would break the law. That’s good to clarify. As your earlier post stated pretty clearly that they would get the money ‘directly or indirectly’ which suggested ‘by any means’.
What do you think the reaction would be if the season tickets carried a surcharge due to the majority owners needing to extract money from the club to pay the representative of supporters of the club due to a judge ruling that they had behaved unlawfully towards those supporters? 10,000 supporters you say would pay a supplement?
I stated that I was only using examples to illustrate the way the numbers worked. I chose simple examples based on your previous posts. How you extrapolate £8m value for the Trust shares from that I have no idea. The figure was simply based on your previous posts, (where you were claiming it would cost £700m to dilute the Trust). Before you moved on to saying the club could only end up in League 2 playing Exeter if supporters were involved, before moving into to attacking the Trust over whether the club would have to pay. Before now saying it’s season ticket holders.
Just take a step back and look at what you are now advocating. You, a supposed supporter of the club, are now saying that you would PREFER the club sold all its players and put a surcharge on 10,000 season tickets, rather than have a sensible arrangement with a shareholding group representing the supporters. And you maintain you are a ‘simple, unconnected person, with no links to anyone’.
Snigger. Do you think you may have gone a little too far now... | | | |
| Trust statement on 13:54 - Jun 18 with 1369 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust statement on 13:37 - Jun 18 by onehunglow |
"you two need to get together and maybe ,when venues are back ,sell tickets and the monies raised can go to our poverty stricken club". I quoted myself there to ave lia the trouble for future reference.
You stay classy though Res amongst us constant flow of abuse.
I don't imply believe anyone,as it happens,but It's entertaining watching you two at it,both wrapped up in the glow of your own egos. You both think you are right. You could both be wrong.
Given the back stabbing trend in our fanbase and the love of a good old bitchfest, It's no surprise the majority of fans have not a scooby as to what went on. Only those who WERE there know that and looking around ,I don't see that many ,if any,I would trust.
THAT is the sadness of it all. |
“ You stay classy though Res amongst us constant flow of abuse. ”.
The fact you think the posts against the Supporters Trust are ‘classy’ sums you up. Genuinely. | | | |
| Trust statement on 15:21 - Jun 18 with 1316 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Trust statement on 13:52 - Jun 18 by londonlisa2001 |
Interesting.
So you believe the owners would sell any player it could and whack up season ticket prices?
No. By the way. A sale of a player doesn’t represent retained earnings. It represents the sale of a player. If you sell a player for £5m that isn’t a £5m profit. Let alone £5m profit after tax.
It’s weird. On one hand you slag off the Trust’s investment policy, repeatedly for month after month after month (despite, by the way, having no idea what the rules are or are not), as though you are an expert, and on the other hand you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about accounting, or company law, or anything similar.
You ‘reject entirely’ that the owners would break the law. That’s good to clarify. As your earlier post stated pretty clearly that they would get the money ‘directly or indirectly’ which suggested ‘by any means’.
What do you think the reaction would be if the season tickets carried a surcharge due to the majority owners needing to extract money from the club to pay the representative of supporters of the club due to a judge ruling that they had behaved unlawfully towards those supporters? 10,000 supporters you say would pay a supplement?
I stated that I was only using examples to illustrate the way the numbers worked. I chose simple examples based on your previous posts. How you extrapolate £8m value for the Trust shares from that I have no idea. The figure was simply based on your previous posts, (where you were claiming it would cost £700m to dilute the Trust). Before you moved on to saying the club could only end up in League 2 playing Exeter if supporters were involved, before moving into to attacking the Trust over whether the club would have to pay. Before now saying it’s season ticket holders.
Just take a step back and look at what you are now advocating. You, a supposed supporter of the club, are now saying that you would PREFER the club sold all its players and put a surcharge on 10,000 season tickets, rather than have a sensible arrangement with a shareholding group representing the supporters. And you maintain you are a ‘simple, unconnected person, with no links to anyone’.
Snigger. Do you think you may have gone a little too far now... |
Please answer the question with regard to how the SCST will invest their money in the event of a win in court.
General inflation is 2.1% .Football inflation is probably way higher in terms of TV rights player fees wages etc.
Assuming The SCST have say £14m in the bank how will they invest this money? This question should be vital to the membership. Leaving it in the bank is not sustainable. | |
| |
| Trust statement on 15:26 - Jun 18 with 1312 views | vetchonian |
| Trust statement on 15:21 - Jun 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Please answer the question with regard to how the SCST will invest their money in the event of a win in court.
General inflation is 2.1% .Football inflation is probably way higher in terms of TV rights player fees wages etc.
Assuming The SCST have say £14m in the bank how will they invest this money? This question should be vital to the membership. Leaving it in the bank is not sustainable. |
Ive heard a whisper the Trust once they get this stash in partnership with an ex director will but Afan Lido FC rebranding as AFC Swansea and lead a Wimbledon like attack on the football pyramid with ambitions of PL status
What do you think they should do? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
