| Trust Position Revisited 09:28 - Nov 7 with 11622 views | Shaky |
Now that some of the takeover hysteria has at least temporarily died down, I think it is time to go back and take another look at the Trust's statement last week issued when I was on holiday with my family over halfterm.
I have already mentioned how I think it generally makes the Trust's position look weak and marginalised; if you have to make your views known to fellow shareholders via what is in effect an open letter it just shows that ordinary channels of communication have completely broken down. This, for example, potentially offers an explanation why the Trust has been so unsuccessful in addressing some of the fans' widespread complaints over a whole range of ticketing issues with the club. To me it is a damning indictment of the whole focus and approach of a body that is within whisker of being the largest shareholder and represents substantially all of the club's customer base. Huge fail.
But going back to specifics of the statement I take particular exception to the following bit which in essence stakes out the Trust position: " . . .given the current strong position of the team and the club we do not believe that this is the correct time for the ownership or set up of the club to change."
The strong position of the club and the team could imply 2 things: the league position and/or the financial position.
If Phil meant the league position I think few outside the club would disagree this represents such an extreme short-sighted view that it must me satirical or some sort of wind-up. In other words if you think the club has now found its natural and permanent position in the prem within the top 6 you are delusional. Furthermore, if you glance at the bottom 6 in the championship you will see Wigan, Fulham, and Bolton, all clubs that have been considered well established in the prem within the last 4 or 5 years, illustrating how rapidly fortunes can reverse.
If he was referring to the financial position as strong, that is simply not true objectively. Certainly the club is currently self financing and the recent improvement in the TV money should help that, but at the same time investment in club infrastructure is required and operating costs are rising rapidly with the club's playing staff strategy - both in terms of wages and sign-on fees - already seemingly out of the window. Furthermore from what I can gather organisationally the club is understaffed and possibly underpaid, and that may be one of the reasons for subpar off-field performance in various areas.
Coping under the circumstances is not a "strong position". And as I have already argued in the past, the fact that none of the shareholders really have deep pockets and the ability to put new capital into the club in the event of a slide out of the prem is a serious potential weakness.
The time to raise capital is when you are strong and everybody is clamouring for a piece of you, not when you are seriously on the slide or the floor. Ask any capital raising expert and they will tell you this is likely to be the best time in the current market cycle to raise financing. ". . not. . .the correct time" as Phil claims is again objectively speaking nonsense. In terms of financial management the idea that now is the ideal time to strengthen the capital position represents sound, prudent management, whereas the opposing view that everything is fine does not.
That said do either of the proposals seemingly on the table from rival groups represent the right way forward? I am not an insider and have no clue whatsoever, but the alarming thing is that the Trust don't seem to have much in the way of hard facts either, and if they do now it seems to be knowledge that has only been acquired within the last week or so, reinforcing my criticism that the Trust is marginalised.
Even so the Trust and their representatives have been whipping up emotions, spouting slogans, etc. Now maybe there are leaks being orchestrated by potential selling shareholders but now is a time for cool heads to prevail, particularly when the real - voting - power of the Trust to affect the outcome of the current situation is so limited.
My advice is to calm down, boys, and maybe go and read a book or something. In the present circumstances I suggest this one:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Confusin-Confusiones/dp/ |  |
| |  |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:44 - Nov 7 with 1275 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:34 - Nov 7 by monmouth |
Just what I was thinking about the whole 'big in america' argument. Oh how we laughed at the pathetic fools as they spread their buttocks wide for their 'Billionaire' 'Investor'.
Are we going to forget all that now then? T2C is right, look at Villa and Sunderland before making such claims. Lerner would get shot tomorrow if he could get his money out. There is no 'big in america' waiting around the corner. That'll just be another false justification. |
I think the market potential in the US is large.
BUT - I believe that as with every other part of the world, it'll largely get mopped up by the huge teams (this doesn't mean I don't think there's more we can do commercially by the way).
And anyone that has ever raised investment in the real world knows that the one thing you don't ever do is start by saying 'the total market size is $x and even if we can get just y% of it it would mean we make this much'. It's a ridiculous way to estimate your potential opportunity and gets laughed at every time someone tries it. |  | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:49 - Nov 7 with 1264 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:06 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
no you didn't actually!
That was the very point you didn't address. You addressed the point of further investment into the club being non dilutive for existing shareholders but you specifically didn't address the point that it's the current investors selling rather than actual investment being brought into the club that is being mooted. A point which makes all the difference ! |
Wrong again, Lisa.
I laid the trail, but you failed to grasp it. Luckily reading between the lines, Phil's lot did, which is all I am concerned with. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:50 - Nov 7 with 1261 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:38 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
Whereas I think there is a very real possibility (as has been mentioned on here over and over again) that the Trust and the other shareholders don't have as happy a relationship as we may wish, and also as they have in the past (hence the spinning of certain anti Trust propaganda), it's certainly the case that the trust didn't write an open letter to inform the other shareholders what their position was because of a break down in communication. |
It's been too "happy" in the past Lisa and may as well have not been there at all...
Anyway, this isn't the time to air such grievances now, it's a time to rally and make the Trust important again and heard. |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:56 - Nov 7 with 1243 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:49 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
Wrong again, Lisa.
I laid the trail, but you failed to grasp it. Luckily reading between the lines, Phil's lot did, which is all I am concerned with. |
No you didn't, no I didn't and no they haven't followed any of your trail you deluded nutter you :-) | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:57 - Nov 7 with 1242 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:34 - Nov 7 by monmouth |
Just what I was thinking about the whole 'big in america' argument. Oh how we laughed at the pathetic fools as they spread their buttocks wide for their 'Billionaire' 'Investor'.
Are we going to forget all that now then? T2C is right, look at Villa and Sunderland before making such claims. Lerner would get shot tomorrow if he could get his money out. There is no 'big in america' waiting around the corner. That'll just be another false justification. |
You watch internet footy streams, right?
Get yourself set up with xbmc and the NBC extra time service mentioned by PolskiJack a while back, and you will see that of the 3 or so Saturday 3pm kick-off games NBC regularly show, Swansea features fairly consistently. That's interesting.
Now we have purported interest from US Private Equity investors, who are by the large not idiots, with specific US sports marketing expertise to boot. You want to dismiss that? What can I say . . . | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:57 - Nov 7 with 1237 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:44 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
I think the market potential in the US is large.
BUT - I believe that as with every other part of the world, it'll largely get mopped up by the huge teams (this doesn't mean I don't think there's more we can do commercially by the way).
And anyone that has ever raised investment in the real world knows that the one thing you don't ever do is start by saying 'the total market size is $x and even if we can get just y% of it it would mean we make this much'. It's a ridiculous way to estimate your potential opportunity and gets laughed at every time someone tries it. |
You're out of your tiny little mind, missy. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:59 - Nov 7 with 1234 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:50 - Nov 7 by _ |
It's been too "happy" in the past Lisa and may as well have not been there at all...
Anyway, this isn't the time to air such grievances now, it's a time to rally and make the Trust important again and heard. |
I don't disagree with your last point, and I don't know what was happening behind the scenes as to whether the trust director was influencing events or otherwise.
I agree completely that it doesn't particularly matter. | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:00 - Nov 7 with 1220 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:57 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
You're out of your tiny little mind, missy. |
no I really am not the one who is out of their mind. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:02 - Nov 7 with 1209 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:59 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't disagree with your last point, and I don't know what was happening behind the scenes as to whether the trust director was influencing events or otherwise.
I agree completely that it doesn't particularly matter. |
I didn't say it doesn't matter Lisa. Oh, it does!
And it should be a lesson that it always should matter from this day forward. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:02 - Nov 7 with 1208 views | jackonicko |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:57 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
You watch internet footy streams, right?
Get yourself set up with xbmc and the NBC extra time service mentioned by PolskiJack a while back, and you will see that of the 3 or so Saturday 3pm kick-off games NBC regularly show, Swansea features fairly consistently. That's interesting.
Now we have purported interest from US Private Equity investors, who are by the large not idiots, with specific US sports marketing expertise to boot. You want to dismiss that? What can I say . . . |
But are they bringing sports marketing expertise? But are they bringing investment?
Or are they just giving money to current shareholders and buying intonthe next round of TV rights. That is the question. |  | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:03 - Nov 7 with 1203 views | westx |
| Trust Position Revisited on 13:38 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001 |
Whereas I think there is a very real possibility (as has been mentioned on here over and over again) that the Trust and the other shareholders don't have as happy a relationship as we may wish, and also as they have in the past (hence the spinning of certain anti Trust propaganda), it's certainly the case that the trust didn't write an open letter to inform the other shareholders what their position was because of a break down in communication. |
given the fact that the trust statement said
"Our message to the other shareholders has therefore been that we do not wish to relinquish our shareholding in the football club"
it is pretty safe that they told the other shareholders their view before they went to press on it
Shaky makes some pretty strong assumptions that the trust knows no details on this which if it was true would make me more dead set against this deal than I am already. of course they know more details but its pretty clear that they are not ready to be public
I get that you don't like the individuals but unfortunately your vendetta against them gets in the way of you being subjective shakes | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:05 - Nov 7 with 1193 views | fbreath |
So will the if you have £1 don't spend £5 mantra be dropped by the board? |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:05 - Nov 7 with 1192 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:02 - Nov 7 by _ |
I didn't say it doesn't matter Lisa. Oh, it does!
And it should be a lesson that it always should matter from this day forward. |
I should have specified 'at the moment'. | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:06 - Nov 7 with 1192 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:03 - Nov 7 by westx |
given the fact that the trust statement said
"Our message to the other shareholders has therefore been that we do not wish to relinquish our shareholding in the football club"
it is pretty safe that they told the other shareholders their view before they went to press on it
Shaky makes some pretty strong assumptions that the trust knows no details on this which if it was true would make me more dead set against this deal than I am already. of course they know more details but its pretty clear that they are not ready to be public
I get that you don't like the individuals but unfortunately your vendetta against them gets in the way of you being subjective shakes |
Vendetta my arse. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:08 - Nov 7 with 1180 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:02 - Nov 7 by jackonicko |
But are they bringing sports marketing expertise? But are they bringing investment?
Or are they just giving money to current shareholders and buying intonthe next round of TV rights. That is the question. |
you shouldn't be wasting your time on here!
You should be concentrating on following Shaky's trail of nuts. A trail that starts from completely the wrong place, but a trail none the less. [Post edited 7 Nov 2014 14:09]
| | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:10 - Nov 7 with 1014 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:02 - Nov 7 by jackonicko |
But are they bringing sports marketing expertise? But are they bringing investment?
Or are they just giving money to current shareholders and buying intonthe next round of TV rights. That is the question. |
Well this is an easy one Jacko... ;-)
Yes they are bringing sports marketing expertise and investment... (the selling point to us, the fans...)
but as a result they are just giving money to the current shareholders and buying into the next round of TV rights (Club, sold, gone...)
Problem we've got is this is going to happen...
So let's start knocking some heads and getting more info out to the public (members of the Trust) so we can monitor and scrutinise our position every corner and turn. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:12 - Nov 7 with 1009 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:03 - Nov 7 by westx |
given the fact that the trust statement said
"Our message to the other shareholders has therefore been that we do not wish to relinquish our shareholding in the football club"
it is pretty safe that they told the other shareholders their view before they went to press on it
Shaky makes some pretty strong assumptions that the trust knows no details on this which if it was true would make me more dead set against this deal than I am already. of course they know more details but its pretty clear that they are not ready to be public
I get that you don't like the individuals but unfortunately your vendetta against them gets in the way of you being subjective shakes |
I agree with too many on here now being clouded by personality clashes. Shaky towards Phil or the Trust and Lisa towards Shaky.
How is that helping at all? | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:13 - Nov 7 with 999 views | westx |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:06 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
Vendetta my arse. |
you let your professional guard down again and reverted to type Shakes
you were called out on Sunday as not being prepared to help. You were called out on it in quite a spectacular throw your toys out of the pram moment that did not go unnoticed I am sure in trust quarters probably emphasising the view they seem to take in ignoring you
and now you want to believe that they are following your trail when I think its been pretty clear they treat you as the evident joke you are on here | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:15 - Nov 7 with 987 views | westx |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:12 - Nov 7 by _ |
I agree with too many on here now being clouded by personality clashes. Shaky towards Phil or the Trust and Lisa towards Shaky.
How is that helping at all? |
Dont forget yours towards Darren and punchrock
I cannot take this Shaky person seriously because of the way he likes to have his digs at people in his posts but you crack on | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:15 - Nov 7 with 984 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:12 - Nov 7 by _ |
I agree with too many on here now being clouded by personality clashes. Shaky towards Phil or the Trust and Lisa towards Shaky.
How is that helping at all? |
sorry Chris. I don't have any problem with Shaky irrespective of the number of times that he jumps on the 'lying lisa' bit. I simply don't care.
What I do have a problem with is nonsense being spouted as 'fact'. | | | |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:16 - Nov 7 with 979 views | Shaky |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:12 - Nov 7 by _ |
I agree with too many on here now being clouded by personality clashes. Shaky towards Phil or the Trust and Lisa towards Shaky.
How is that helping at all? |
Do you think my criticism of Phil and the Trust here is anything other than objective, Chris? | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:16 - Nov 7 with 976 views | Darran |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:15 - Nov 7 by westx |
Dont forget yours towards Darren and punchrock
I cannot take this Shaky person seriously because of the way he likes to have his digs at people in his posts but you crack on |
Great post. |  |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:21 - Nov 7 with 960 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:15 - Nov 7 by westx |
Dont forget yours towards Darren and punchrock
I cannot take this Shaky person seriously because of the way he likes to have his digs at people in his posts but you crack on |
I'd say my spats with the aforementioned posters to be included in threads of no particular relevance to the future of the club.
This topic is a bit different but hey ho... | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:24 - Nov 7 with 950 views | _ |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:16 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
Do you think my criticism of Phil and the Trust here is anything other than objective, Chris? |
I think if you have criticism of the Trust you should come out and say so. Be objective as you can.
You know yourself how blunt you can be... I don't have a problem with that but you will also know it ruffles feathers and invites attacks from the likes of Westx, now also it seems. | |
| |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:24 - Nov 7 with 949 views | westx |
| Trust Position Revisited on 14:16 - Nov 7 by Shaky |
Do you think my criticism of Phil and the Trust here is anything other than objective, Chris? |
Very objective Shakes (and yes I know you were not talking to me) but if I may take just a short period of your valuable time to quote a post that you made on 2nd this month at 13.27 which contained the objective criticism of
"Therefore on a personal level, Phil can go f*ck himself. Do I make myself clear? "
Or the same day at 10.47
" I don't accept corporate finance mandates from people I consider to be fools "
10.14 same day
"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."
Two minutes previous
"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. "
18.08 last Saturday
"Bottom line is I think you are a fool, and the fact is I don't work with fools so all this is moot. "
And that is just a quick search
Objective is something you certainly aren't | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
