| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 13:05 - Jan 14 with 2312 views | AndyCole |
.
Let's hope that 'investment' is funded by the imminent dump of Dhanda esp.
Jake S is having significant impact, is massively supportive and has very deep pockets - the Christie last minute turnabout was largely due to JS. By all accounts.
Let's hope we get who we need and kick on, no more excuses.
.
. |  |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
|  |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 14:02 - Jan 14 with 2225 views | Badlands |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 13:05 - Jan 14 by AndyCole |
.
Let's hope that 'investment' is funded by the imminent dump of Dhanda esp.
Jake S is having significant impact, is massively supportive and has very deep pockets - the Christie last minute turnabout was largely due to JS. By all accounts.
Let's hope we get who we need and kick on, no more excuses.
.
. |
Who we need and who Martin wants are not necessarily the same thing. |  |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 17:11 - Jan 14 with 2052 views | max936 |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 13:05 - Jan 14 by AndyCole |
.
Let's hope that 'investment' is funded by the imminent dump of Dhanda esp.
Jake S is having significant impact, is massively supportive and has very deep pockets - the Christie last minute turnabout was largely due to JS. By all accounts.
Let's hope we get who we need and kick on, no more excuses.
.
. |
Very surprised to read that, but its good news if true, which belies my thought that he was over to check on his loan. |  |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 18:59 - Jan 14 with 1977 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
I know it annoys people but where is the Trust s contribution? I treat them as mature adults who should be able to pay their way. They are not incapable of being useful. £250,000 paid in legal costs? £880,000 in the bank getting 0.15% pa from the accounts. £1320.
They can get 5% return (33 times the Santander) . The look like dead wood owners to me with members having a very low expectation of them. Everyone else has to contribute not them. Why not?
If the Trust take interest it has no effect on the others at all. |  |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:37 - Jan 14 with 1937 views | vetchonian |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 18:59 - Jan 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I know it annoys people but where is the Trust s contribution? I treat them as mature adults who should be able to pay their way. They are not incapable of being useful. £250,000 paid in legal costs? £880,000 in the bank getting 0.15% pa from the accounts. £1320.
They can get 5% return (33 times the Santander) . The look like dead wood owners to me with members having a very low expectation of them. Everyone else has to contribute not them. Why not?
If the Trust take interest it has no effect on the others at all. |
maybe Russell should have just got on and worked with the resources available to him or perhaps the cheap option of a couple of MLS players | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:51 - Jan 14 with 1917 views | Chief |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 18:59 - Jan 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I know it annoys people but where is the Trust s contribution? I treat them as mature adults who should be able to pay their way. They are not incapable of being useful. £250,000 paid in legal costs? £880,000 in the bank getting 0.15% pa from the accounts. £1320.
They can get 5% return (33 times the Santander) . The look like dead wood owners to me with members having a very low expectation of them. Everyone else has to contribute not them. Why not?
If the Trust take interest it has no effect on the others at all. |
I see you've suspiciously got that random itch again just to shoehorn a trust bashing post in somewhere despite there being no developments that warrant comment on them.
This has all been pointed out to you many many times now.
The trust were not invited into the loaning pool (remember that was ascertained on the CLN thread you started but ran away from) and haven't been provided with the information relating to it, despite requests. AS YOU ALREADY KNOW.
Forget the interest, the trust wouldn't want to take it off the club when it needs money, completely unfeasible, as you know. They are pursuing other routes to get money (a lot more, and not from the club's coffers). AS YOU ALREADY KNOW.
But if the trust decide to loan in, chances are the majority owners would vote against it as it would mean that Silverstein (if all the other shareholders have weighed in as Winter suggested) wouldn't get as many shares as he was expecting or he was previously promised should everyone convert. AS YOU ALREADY KNOW.
So another patent example of you blaming the trust for something that they probably wouldn't be able to do if they wanted to. And you know this, but of course you try to constantly mislead in your propaganda. |  |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:53 - Jan 14 with 1915 views | Chief |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 13:05 - Jan 14 by AndyCole |
.
Let's hope that 'investment' is funded by the imminent dump of Dhanda esp.
Jake S is having significant impact, is massively supportive and has very deep pockets - the Christie last minute turnabout was largely due to JS. By all accounts.
Let's hope we get who we need and kick on, no more excuses.
.
. |
Who's accounts were they then? Because it's been reported Christie has taken a paycut to join us rather than us necessarily pushing the boat out. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 19:54]
| |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:56 - Jan 14 with 1901 views | GruffStephens |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 13:05 - Jan 14 by AndyCole |
.
Let's hope that 'investment' is funded by the imminent dump of Dhanda esp.
Jake S is having significant impact, is massively supportive and has very deep pockets - the Christie last minute turnabout was largely due to JS. By all accounts.
Let's hope we get who we need and kick on, no more excuses.
.
. |
Have to agree with AC, Silverstein has left the swans in rude health.
Money to spend and a clear financial pathway for the rest of the month. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:58 - Jan 14 with 1896 views | Chief |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:56 - Jan 14 by GruffStephens |
Have to agree with AC, Silverstein has left the swans in rude health.
Money to spend and a clear financial pathway for the rest of the month. |
So what are you saying? He's loaned the club more money? | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:18 - Jan 14 with 1870 views | Dr_Winston |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:56 - Jan 14 by GruffStephens |
Have to agree with AC, Silverstein has left the swans in rude health.
Money to spend and a clear financial pathway for the rest of the month. |
IF the money has strings attached then it's not rude health.
It's a shame we've moved away from the self sustaining model. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:20 - Jan 14 with 1866 views | Chief |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:18 - Jan 14 by Dr_Winston |
IF the money has strings attached then it's not rude health.
It's a shame we've moved away from the self sustaining model. |
Yea agreed. Having to loan £10million plus off people charging 5% interest and reducing the proceeds from the Rodon sale to get fast cash doesn't scream 'rude health' to me. | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:30 - Jan 14 with 1848 views | vetchonian |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:20 - Jan 14 by Chief |
Yea agreed. Having to loan £10million plus off people charging 5% interest and reducing the proceeds from the Rodon sale to get fast cash doesn't scream 'rude health' to me. |
its known as the "next level".... | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:33 - Jan 14 with 1843 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:51 - Jan 14 by Chief |
I see you've suspiciously got that random itch again just to shoehorn a trust bashing post in somewhere despite there being no developments that warrant comment on them.
This has all been pointed out to you many many times now.
The trust were not invited into the loaning pool (remember that was ascertained on the CLN thread you started but ran away from) and haven't been provided with the information relating to it, despite requests. AS YOU ALREADY KNOW.
Forget the interest, the trust wouldn't want to take it off the club when it needs money, completely unfeasible, as you know. They are pursuing other routes to get money (a lot more, and not from the club's coffers). AS YOU ALREADY KNOW.
But if the trust decide to loan in, chances are the majority owners would vote against it as it would mean that Silverstein (if all the other shareholders have weighed in as Winter suggested) wouldn't get as many shares as he was expecting or he was previously promised should everyone convert. AS YOU ALREADY KNOW.
So another patent example of you blaming the trust for something that they probably wouldn't be able to do if they wanted to. And you know this, but of course you try to constantly mislead in your propaganda. |
It not Trust bashing. Its asking the Trust to make the same contribution to the club war chest as everyone else has done as I brought to the forums attention. I do not run away and i advise the Trust not to run away either. The sum they wish to invest is up to them and would be gratefully accepted I suspect.
The Trust have made no request to join the CLN unless you know any different. Other shareholder might have made that request.
The idea that the Trust would not take money from the club is laughable. They have put in £200k and taken out roughly £600k in dividends. They a have paid more in legal costs £250k than they ever put in the club. £200k.
If the Trust take the interest it has no effect on the share bought by investors on or their percentage holding. This is incorrect.
I am replying to fans who want US money loaned and invested in the club while sitting on £880k of their own. In the Premier League this money was irrelevant, . Now the SCST are able to make a significant contribution to the club but decline leaving the risk to other. You called the 'Convertible loan note' zero risk. So why have they not volunteered their funds. 5% is on offer but the Trust could not take it from the club? OK take less then. Wriggling out of responsibility perhaps ?
They will not be asked as they are not needed . it is up to them. They are fan owned but the fans do not hold them accountable. No one of this democratic organisation seems to have any facts.
It is a fact that the Trust had sufficient funds to cover Andy Fishers transfer fee. | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:38 - Jan 14 with 1830 views | max936 |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:20 - Jan 14 by Chief |
Yea agreed. Having to loan £10million plus off people charging 5% interest and reducing the proceeds from the Rodon sale to get fast cash doesn't scream 'rude health' to me. |
That's a good point, the other way of looking at it is that the better the club does the more value that's in the club etc, could be he's playing the long game. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 21:22]
| |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:59 - Jan 14 with 1803 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:38 - Jan 14 by max936 |
That's a good point, the other way of looking at it is that the better the club does the more value that's in the club etc, could be he's playing the long game. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 21:22]
|
You are getting there. The US people are playing the long game.
The members voted for legal action in the belief supported by forum narratives that the US people would asset strip and be off once the parachutes has gone. They were not expected to invest and stick around. The narrative was fake and it is time for a re assessment.
The Trust then took the same tactic of 'getting out of town' by legal means and fixing the price at the 2016 price. There is now only one potential 'asset stripper' and that is ironically the fans themselves and their legal backers.
They are no longer fearful of administration and have changed the narrative. The enemy is now 'dilution' and dilution means investment by others . The 'dilution to nothing' is another dubious narrative.
Investment is good not bad. It is not even bad for the Trust. Chief believes in "hen fermwr" economics. Burnley were sold for £200m and Southampton for £205m. The Trust value is based on league position as inflation outstrips any dilution effects. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 21:01]
| |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:59 - Jan 14 with 1801 views | Chief |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:33 - Jan 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It not Trust bashing. Its asking the Trust to make the same contribution to the club war chest as everyone else has done as I brought to the forums attention. I do not run away and i advise the Trust not to run away either. The sum they wish to invest is up to them and would be gratefully accepted I suspect.
The Trust have made no request to join the CLN unless you know any different. Other shareholder might have made that request.
The idea that the Trust would not take money from the club is laughable. They have put in £200k and taken out roughly £600k in dividends. They a have paid more in legal costs £250k than they ever put in the club. £200k.
If the Trust take the interest it has no effect on the share bought by investors on or their percentage holding. This is incorrect.
I am replying to fans who want US money loaned and invested in the club while sitting on £880k of their own. In the Premier League this money was irrelevant, . Now the SCST are able to make a significant contribution to the club but decline leaving the risk to other. You called the 'Convertible loan note' zero risk. So why have they not volunteered their funds. 5% is on offer but the Trust could not take it from the club? OK take less then. Wriggling out of responsibility perhaps ?
They will not be asked as they are not needed . it is up to them. They are fan owned but the fans do not hold them accountable. No one of this democratic organisation seems to have any facts.
It is a fact that the Trust had sufficient funds to cover Andy Fishers transfer fee. |
- well it is bashing, because as I explained, you're expecting them to do something you know they realistically cannot do. But you frame it as this being a deficiency of the trust, when in fact they don't have the casting vote on such decisions. You ran away from a thread where this was explained to you. The sum isn't up to the trust, nor is the ability to. You are clearly lying again.
- They've requested the information relating to the CLN, without which they couldn't possibly be able to get involved even if they wanted to.
- Read what I said again. They took dividends when the club was making money in the premier league. Taking money now is a world apart. And unlike what the other dividend takers spent their money on, the trust could not spend theirs on anything other than ventures relating to the club. That dividend has allowed them to pursue the sale of the shares to dwarf any dividend taken, the proceeds of which can only be used in relation to the club.
- I don't know what that means. I mentioned nothing about taking interest affecting percentage holdings.
- what fans are you replying to? I didn't see anyone engage you in conversation. This is starter with one of your random slander posts. They can't decline something they can't feasibly do because it's out of their hands, to decline implies having a choice. But it isn't their choice.
- it is zero risk, but the instigators only decided to offer the opportunity to some parties while keeping the details from others. As I've explained, it isn't in the Americans / Silversteins interests to have the trust involved. Maybe you should challenge them seeing as they hold the decisive power in the situation. Why don't they call the trust's bluff (like I did on your CLN thread you're scared of) - publically offer the trust the opportunity to loan in too. But they won't. Because the status quo suits them.
- again, forget the interest, it isn't an attractive proposition for the trust.
- Were other shareholders needed then besides the initial reported £10mill put in Silverstein / K&L? Probably not, but they've been included. So another silly red herring point. So now you're saying the trust's loans aren't needed. So what are you having these childish pangs about then? The members are holding them accountable for matters they can control. Not contributing to a CLN they excluded from, aren't being given any information on and as you stated isn't even needed & even if they wanted to would get vetoed by the other owners isn't one of those things I'm sorry!
The facts are held by the Americans who for some reason won't share them.
- it is a fact that the trust couldn't have loaned the club money to cover it. Bizarre point, he's signed, there was money in the club's accounts to pay him? Why does the club need to take on more debt? | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:09 - Jan 14 with 1778 views | AndyCole |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:38 - Jan 14 by max936 |
That's a good point, the other way of looking at it is that the better the club does the more value that's in the club etc, could be he's playing the long game. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 21:22]
|
.
You're right Max.
There are far too many risk averse, idealistic happy clappers here and next door that want success without the inherent risk of pursuing rich rewards. Cowards who no doubt don't live in the real entrepreneurial world. Yesteryear plastics, on a shoestring.
We are fortunate to be sailing on a healthy keel, thanks largely to our true messiah Birchy. The likes of JS are a godsend right now and some fans need to open their 'eyes wide shut'. Risk reward. Some fans here need to google it.
.
. | |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:12 - Jan 14 with 1775 views | Chief |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:59 - Jan 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are getting there. The US people are playing the long game.
The members voted for legal action in the belief supported by forum narratives that the US people would asset strip and be off once the parachutes has gone. They were not expected to invest and stick around. The narrative was fake and it is time for a re assessment.
The Trust then took the same tactic of 'getting out of town' by legal means and fixing the price at the 2016 price. There is now only one potential 'asset stripper' and that is ironically the fans themselves and their legal backers.
They are no longer fearful of administration and have changed the narrative. The enemy is now 'dilution' and dilution means investment by others . The 'dilution to nothing' is another dubious narrative.
Investment is good not bad. It is not even bad for the Trust. Chief believes in "hen fermwr" economics. Burnley were sold for £200m and Southampton for £205m. The Trust value is based on league position as inflation outstrips any dilution effects. [Post edited 14 Jan 2022 21:01]
|
- well indeed, they don't seem keen on converting and actually investing. They are taking their time testing the waters no doubt. And they can't get out now or anytime soon without anything but a huge loss.
- It's probably best you re-assess that viewpoint. The proof is in the pudding. As you correctly point out asset stripping hasn't occurred yet, yet the appetite to proceed with the case amongst members still remains, the only frustration being that it's taking so long to do so. Although they haven't yet invested, just losned.
- How can the trust selling their shares be construed as asset stripping? Insane and completely disingenuous stretch. Desperate.
- The trust have warned of dilution from the very beginning of interest in parties wanting to buy the club. To suggest otherwise is a blatent lie so their narrative hasn't changed at all. The danger of dilution is even more stark now a CLN that the trust were excluded from is in existence. So it's not dubious whatsoever, the trust stands to lose a decent percentage.
- it's only good if it's effective. And what the investors want in return. It's risky ladening the club with debt. Burnley and Southampton are long tenured premier league clubs with larger assets. Even if we did get to their level there's no guarantee the trust would be included in any sale anyway. There's precedent for such. | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:14 - Jan 14 with 1770 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:59 - Jan 14 by Chief |
- well it is bashing, because as I explained, you're expecting them to do something you know they realistically cannot do. But you frame it as this being a deficiency of the trust, when in fact they don't have the casting vote on such decisions. You ran away from a thread where this was explained to you. The sum isn't up to the trust, nor is the ability to. You are clearly lying again.
- They've requested the information relating to the CLN, without which they couldn't possibly be able to get involved even if they wanted to.
- Read what I said again. They took dividends when the club was making money in the premier league. Taking money now is a world apart. And unlike what the other dividend takers spent their money on, the trust could not spend theirs on anything other than ventures relating to the club. That dividend has allowed them to pursue the sale of the shares to dwarf any dividend taken, the proceeds of which can only be used in relation to the club.
- I don't know what that means. I mentioned nothing about taking interest affecting percentage holdings.
- what fans are you replying to? I didn't see anyone engage you in conversation. This is starter with one of your random slander posts. They can't decline something they can't feasibly do because it's out of their hands, to decline implies having a choice. But it isn't their choice.
- it is zero risk, but the instigators only decided to offer the opportunity to some parties while keeping the details from others. As I've explained, it isn't in the Americans / Silversteins interests to have the trust involved. Maybe you should challenge them seeing as they hold the decisive power in the situation. Why don't they call the trust's bluff (like I did on your CLN thread you're scared of) - publically offer the trust the opportunity to loan in too. But they won't. Because the status quo suits them.
- again, forget the interest, it isn't an attractive proposition for the trust.
- Were other shareholders needed then besides the initial reported £10mill put in Silverstein / K&L? Probably not, but they've been included. So another silly red herring point. So now you're saying the trust's loans aren't needed. So what are you having these childish pangs about then? The members are holding them accountable for matters they can control. Not contributing to a CLN they excluded from, aren't being given any information on and as you stated isn't even needed & even if they wanted to would get vetoed by the other owners isn't one of those things I'm sorry!
The facts are held by the Americans who for some reason won't share them.
- it is a fact that the trust couldn't have loaned the club money to cover it. Bizarre point, he's signed, there was money in the club's accounts to pay him? Why does the club need to take on more debt? |
There is nothing to stop the Trust investing in the club. I have read the constitution, Investing cash in the club is clearly allowed. So why have they not expressed interest in investing like all the others and got their ducks in order? | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:19 - Jan 14 with 1763 views | Chief |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:09 - Jan 14 by AndyCole |
.
You're right Max.
There are far too many risk averse, idealistic happy clappers here and next door that want success without the inherent risk of pursuing rich rewards. Cowards who no doubt don't live in the real entrepreneurial world. Yesteryear plastics, on a shoestring.
We are fortunate to be sailing on a healthy keel, thanks largely to our true messiah Birchy. The likes of JS are a godsend right now and some fans need to open their 'eyes wide shut'. Risk reward. Some fans here need to google it.
.
. |
Silverstein has only losned the club £5mill that we know of (over a year ago) which is less than half the whole loan. So why is he being focused upon specifically now?
I'll ask again because Gruff suspiciously didn't answer, has he lent the club more money?
Otherwise how can it be ascertained who's money he's sanctioning transfers from and got us onto a 'healthy keel' (£10mill plus debt!)?
It could be the other shareholders loans, the clubs own finances or the expedited Rodon money? But Silverstein alone is being credited.
Is there more to this? | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:23 - Jan 14 with 1753 views | Chief |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:14 - Jan 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
There is nothing to stop the Trust investing in the club. I have read the constitution, Investing cash in the club is clearly allowed. So why have they not expressed interest in investing like all the others and got their ducks in order? |
- if the majority shareholders of the club won't sanction it, they can't loan the club money. Nothing to do with the trust's constitution.
- they've requested details of the CLN terms. Without which they can't.
- if the CLN is converted though the trust would legally have to be offered the opportunity to match pro rata to avoid dilution. So it's the loaners who could make that decision if they wanted to. | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:27 - Jan 14 with 1725 views | guthrieintherain |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 21:09 - Jan 14 by AndyCole |
.
You're right Max.
There are far too many risk averse, idealistic happy clappers here and next door that want success without the inherent risk of pursuing rich rewards. Cowards who no doubt don't live in the real entrepreneurial world. Yesteryear plastics, on a shoestring.
We are fortunate to be sailing on a healthy keel, thanks largely to our true messiah Birchy. The likes of JS are a godsend right now and some fans need to open their 'eyes wide shut'. Risk reward. Some fans here need to google it.
.
. |
Some fans need to google Derby County or Bolton Wanderers.
We need to live within our means. | |
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 22:17 - Jan 14 with 1656 views | builthjack |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 19:56 - Jan 14 by GruffStephens |
Have to agree with AC, Silverstein has left the swans in rude health.
Money to spend and a clear financial pathway for the rest of the month. |
Isn't he a mini Glazier? |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 22:30 - Jan 14 with 1631 views | BillyChong |
Silverstein loaning the club money and charging interest is not ‘investment’ or commitment. £400k and a loan signing is equivalent to what we were doing 12+ years ago in League One. Evidence of how the sellouts mismanaged the club before riding off into the sunset with bags of dollars. | | | |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 22:36 - Jan 14 with 1620 views | BillyChong |
| Russell Martin makes it very clear on Swansea City funding on 20:33 - Jan 14 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It not Trust bashing. Its asking the Trust to make the same contribution to the club war chest as everyone else has done as I brought to the forums attention. I do not run away and i advise the Trust not to run away either. The sum they wish to invest is up to them and would be gratefully accepted I suspect.
The Trust have made no request to join the CLN unless you know any different. Other shareholder might have made that request.
The idea that the Trust would not take money from the club is laughable. They have put in £200k and taken out roughly £600k in dividends. They a have paid more in legal costs £250k than they ever put in the club. £200k.
If the Trust take the interest it has no effect on the share bought by investors on or their percentage holding. This is incorrect.
I am replying to fans who want US money loaned and invested in the club while sitting on £880k of their own. In the Premier League this money was irrelevant, . Now the SCST are able to make a significant contribution to the club but decline leaving the risk to other. You called the 'Convertible loan note' zero risk. So why have they not volunteered their funds. 5% is on offer but the Trust could not take it from the club? OK take less then. Wriggling out of responsibility perhaps ?
They will not be asked as they are not needed . it is up to them. They are fan owned but the fans do not hold them accountable. No one of this democratic organisation seems to have any facts.
It is a fact that the Trust had sufficient funds to cover Andy Fishers transfer fee. |
Surely the Trust were obliged to a dividend when the sellouts started awarding them to themselves? £200k was a lot more than some of them put in, and the dividend a lot less than some of them walked away with. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
