By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
It has been stated in the Press that the Trust are against an "investment" who gave the Trust the authority to say that? Here's an interesting question who could actually vote if the investment question were put,I think it would be the voting members who have paid their £10 membership fee,how many of those were contacted for their opinion before the Trust's statement went to press?
Here's an interesting question for you - go and read the statement again and come back and tell me what it actually says
Oh and by the way, for statements like the one we made (which says something completely different) that is exactly why we (you) elect a Trust board
I'm loving the idea of consulting members before we say anything - as Uxbridge said it so well "christ on a bike"
On the huge question of "investment" the answer is yes and why not its a major decision for a major shareholder.
Yeah but to be fair TDH if nothing concrete has been proposed then there's nothing to tell. All we've had is leaks from the club testing the water to how the supporters will react. I suspect some aren't happy with the outright skepticism they are reading on here. Tough titties I say
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
On the huge question of "investment" the answer is yes and why not its a major decision for a major shareholder.
Again, read the statement, think about the words that are written, look at what has happened and then think about where we actually are at this point in time
In particular pay very deep and clear reference to the last sentence of the statement.
swanstrust.co.uk - it is on there not the lines that you may have picked up in any papers, the statement in it's entirety
Yeah but to be fair TDH if nothing concrete has been proposed then there's nothing to tell. All we've had is leaks from the club testing the water to how the supporters will react. I suspect some aren't happy with the outright skepticism they are reading on here. Tough titties I say
If I was playing Bingo I would be shouting House at this point in time.
First sentence - spot on Second sentence - even more spot on (see the leaks made to people on here)
Yeah but to be fair TDH if nothing concrete has been proposed then there's nothing to tell. All we've had is leaks from the club testing the water to how the supporters will react. I suspect some aren't happy with the outright skepticism they are reading on here. Tough titties I say
I have to say I agree with your first point and the fact that lots of people are getting very excited over rumour and innuendo. I am somewhat alarmed if some of those rumours are sourced from the board to get the fans reaction.
I tend to take Internet rumours with a pinch of salt but if the club are using PS as a sounding board then they have gone down in my estimation. Surely once a concrete investment plan is hatched and a policy agreed then is the time to disclose and let fans have a say?
Nobody knows what the board or Moores want from this collaboration/investment agreement at the moment but it could well get side tracked as a result of misinformation based on rumour and not facts.
If the investment is purely a "we will expand and develop your infrastructure for a return of x% for the next x number of years"then that COULD suit all parties, however if it is here's a bundle of cash now give us the club they could well be setting the club up for a NUFC/Ashley scenario which would be very worrying.
The club obviously want to secure some investment but what for and at what price? We are obviously lagging behind our peers in some areas especially commercially but is this just completion of building projects or something else? These questions have not really been answered to date.
"If the investment is purely a 'we will expand and develop your infrastructure for a return of x% for the next x number of years' then that COULD suit all parties"
If that was the case then isn't zero control structured term debt capital a better option?
Plus, of course current directors would not get any money out of that so their integrity couldn't be questioned which I'm sure is the outcome they want ;).
I have to say I agree with your first point and the fact that lots of people are getting very excited over rumour and innuendo. I am somewhat alarmed if some of those rumours are sourced from the board to get the fans reaction.
I tend to take Internet rumours with a pinch of salt but if the club are using PS as a sounding board then they have gone down in my estimation. Surely once a concrete investment plan is hatched and a policy agreed then is the time to disclose and let fans have a say?
Nobody knows what the board or Moores want from this collaboration/investment agreement at the moment but it could well get side tracked as a result of misinformation based on rumour and not facts.
If the investment is purely a "we will expand and develop your infrastructure for a return of x% for the next x number of years"then that COULD suit all parties, however if it is here's a bundle of cash now give us the club they could well be setting the club up for a NUFC/Ashley scenario which would be very worrying.
The club obviously want to secure some investment but what for and at what price? We are obviously lagging behind our peers in some areas especially commercially but is this just completion of building projects or something else? These questions have not really been answered to date.
TBH Pace there's no philanthropy in the multi million world of PL football. This is why we HAVE to resist as outsiders with no love or ties with the club will try to turn it into a cash cow. Here is a scene with Huw being played by Steve Martin and the vast majority of the SCFC fanbase (played by a woman's portrait) when he puts the question of outside investment that could possibly lead to a takeover and loss of fan influence.
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
I have to say I agree with your first point and the fact that lots of people are getting very excited over rumour and innuendo. I am somewhat alarmed if some of those rumours are sourced from the board to get the fans reaction.
I tend to take Internet rumours with a pinch of salt but if the club are using PS as a sounding board then they have gone down in my estimation. Surely once a concrete investment plan is hatched and a policy agreed then is the time to disclose and let fans have a say?
Nobody knows what the board or Moores want from this collaboration/investment agreement at the moment but it could well get side tracked as a result of misinformation based on rumour and not facts.
If the investment is purely a "we will expand and develop your infrastructure for a return of x% for the next x number of years"then that COULD suit all parties, however if it is here's a bundle of cash now give us the club they could well be setting the club up for a NUFC/Ashley scenario which would be very worrying.
The club obviously want to secure some investment but what for and at what price? We are obviously lagging behind our peers in some areas especially commercially but is this just completion of building projects or something else? These questions have not really been answered to date.
It is most definitely fair to say that the club/shareholders have been leaking information to gauge opinion - look at the thread last week that said the trust was blocking a sale
"If the investment is purely a 'we will expand and develop your infrastructure for a return of x% for the next x number of years' then that COULD suit all parties"
If that was the case then isn't zero control structured term debt capital a better option?
Plus, of course current directors would not get any money out of that so their integrity couldn't be questioned which I'm sure is the outcome they want ;).
Are you shaky in disguise? Are you shaky in dis-guiiiiisse
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
"If the investment is purely a 'we will expand and develop your infrastructure for a return of x% for the next x number of years' then that COULD suit all parties"
If that was the case then isn't zero control structured term debt capital a better option?
Plus, of course current directors would not get any money out of that so their integrity couldn't be questioned which I'm sure is the outcome they want ;).
Well that is certainly one of the more sensible suggestions I have heard on here, but I think it is now time for me to withdraw gracefully from this line of discussion.
I am somewhat conflicted by my general support for the concept of the Trust and my belief that Karma ultimately always prevails, which should then see Phil reaping the full fruit basket his leadership clearly deserves.
So time for me to retire from this discussion to reflect, meditate, and perhaps even gather material for a book or maybe a film manuscript with the right financial backing; all I can reveal to you at this stage, Team W@ank, is it's looking like a farce.
Are you shaky in disguise? Are you shaky in dis-guiiiiisse
Monmouth is somebody who almost certainly knows what a PLC is and what it is not, which immediately makes him significantly more qualified to advise the Trust than Phil's hand-picked band of jokers.
And that is the kiss of death for him right there.
Monmouth is somebody who almost certainly knows what a PLC is and what it is not, which immediately makes him significantly more qualified to advise the Trust than Phil's hand-picked band of jokers.
And that is the kiss of death for him right there.
[Post edited 2 Nov 2014 10:15]
Surely the trust have a good team behind them? are you stating that they have not?
Surely the trust have a good team behind them? are you stating that they have not?
By Phil's own admission his core team consists of people I have said and - on multiple occasions - proved know very, very little about my specialist field which is corporate finance in general and mergers and acquisitions in particular.
By Phil's own admission his core team consists of people I have said and - on multiple occasions - proved know very, very little about my specialist field which is corporate finance in general and mergers and acquisitions in particular.
That is all.
That worries me greatly as a member, who are these people?
That worries me greatly as a member, who are these people?
No offence, but as I said it is time for me to withdraw from this line of discussion with a big bag of popcorn.
The issue at hand is not me, but rather the tricky situation the Trust finds itself in, and who knows everything could well still turn out alright on the night.
Regardless, from my vantage point it is certainly shaping up to be first rate entertainment.
No offence, but as I said it is time for me to withdraw from this line of discussion with a big bag of popcorn.
The issue at hand is not me, but rather the tricky situation the Trust finds itself in, and who knows everything could well still turn out alright on the night.
Regardless, from my vantage point it is certainly shaping up to be first rate entertainment.
No offence taken just a very strange line to take given your support and belief in a trust
No offence, but as I said it is time for me to withdraw from this line of discussion with a big bag of popcorn.
The issue at hand is not me, but rather the tricky situation the Trust finds itself in, and who knows everything could well still turn out alright on the night.
Regardless, from my vantage point it is certainly shaping up to be first rate entertainment.
Why don't you send your CV to Phil, with real details of who you are, your track record, your breadth and depth of experience and let him make a decision based on facts, rather than your posts on here?
Why don't you send your CV to Phil, with real details of who you are, your track record, your breadth and depth of experience and let him make a decision based on facts, rather than your posts on here?
Because:
- I don't accept corporate finance mandates from people I consider to be fools
- I don't provide advisory services by way of committee
- I don't need the work and I don't want it even if the Trust were to pay me anything approaching my regular day rates
Now time for the discussion to move on. You and your chums have got some serious studying and Googling to do.
If I was playing Bingo I would be shouting House at this point in time.
First sentence - spot on Second sentence - even more spot on (see the leaks made to people on here)
Without information about what is really going on this whole situation is starting to smell a bit off.
Selective leaks to test fan reaction has more than a whiff of what went on up the road, if there is nothing that fans could object to going on why act in this fashion?
our neighbours were warned about what could happen with their benefactor and how he would want to assume total control of their club, I would be surprised if any potential benefactor for our club would want less than total control at some stage.
- I don't accept corporate finance mandates from people I consider to be fools
- I don't provide advisory services by way of committee
- I don't need the work and I don't want it even if the Trust were to pay me anything approaching my regular day rates
Now time for the discussion to move on. You and your chums have got some serious studying and Googling to do.
All mouth and all action, Shaky.
You mouth off about being superior to everyone on here, but then can't back it up in reality. If you sent your CV (or a real bio) to Phil, instead of coming across as an arrogant know-it-all, he might take you seriously.
You can't really blame anyone for not taking you seriously, can you?
Monmouth is somebody who almost certainly knows what a PLC is and what it is not, which immediately makes him significantly more qualified to advise the Trust than Phil's hand-picked band of jokers.
And that is the kiss of death for him right there.
[Post edited 2 Nov 2014 10:15]
Not meant as disrespect shakes, it's just every time I see a financial related thread I think of you. And I'm not taking sides because I haven't the foggiest mate, honest
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
- I don't accept corporate finance mandates from people I consider to be fools
- I don't provide advisory services by way of committee
- I don't need the work and I don't want it even if the Trust were to pay me anything approaching my regular day rates
Now time for the discussion to move on. You and your chums have got some serious studying and Googling to do.
So therefore respectfully can I suggest you shut your mouth on the basis you spent several posts saying the trust had the wrong advice and you could do better but you don't want to
So therefore respectfully can I suggest you shut your mouth on the basis you spent several posts saying the trust had the wrong advice and you could do better but you don't want to
#waanker
"Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened" says the bible.
I have been giving high quality advice free of charge to Phil and the trust for several years, but at least for the last 12months Phil has defensively treated that as a personal criticism, which in fairness it has increasingly been, responding with at string bizarre and incoherent personal attacks on me of rising intensity.
Therefore on a personal level, Phil can go f*ck himself. Do I make myself clear?
That said, because I am really a big softy at heart I continue to dispense nuggets of esoteric financial wisdom to him that hath ears -- it's showtime boys.
Now if you'll excuse me I was actually attempting to shut up about this, prior to your recent exhortation.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
