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.
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:
Trust Position Revisited on 14:24 - Nov 7 by westx
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
He's not a Swan's fan Mate he's admitted it in the past,he's just on a wind up.
[Post edited 7 Nov 2014 14:32]
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
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.
its not an attack just a simple observation that mr shaky (who clearly is your pal and someone you know personally) should actually make his criticism properly and via the right channels but he made it clear in his toys out of the pram moment last weekend that he had no intention of doing that
therefore it is pretty safe to assume in my head that any action the trust will take will not be formed by a faceless person on an internet forum. and that gives me great comfort to be honest no matter how well qualified shakes may be he has made his position clear so I would imagine those in power will continue to ignore him
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.
So, if they bought some shares, and joined board meetings once a month, that would count as bringing marketing expertise?
They're going to have to be bloody good to make a difference in that one hour a month!
There is no information out there yet to suggest they're doing anything more than that.
0
Trust Position Revisited on 14:27 - Nov 7 with 1359 views
Trust Position Revisited on 14:26 - Nov 7 by westx
its not an attack just a simple observation that mr shaky (who clearly is your pal and someone you know personally) should actually make his criticism properly and via the right channels but he made it clear in his toys out of the pram moment last weekend that he had no intention of doing that
therefore it is pretty safe to assume in my head that any action the trust will take will not be formed by a faceless person on an internet forum. and that gives me great comfort to be honest no matter how well qualified shakes may be he has made his position clear so I would imagine those in power will continue to ignore him
as it should be
Great post.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Trust Position Revisited on 14:24 - Nov 7 by westx
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
You use lingo like this mate... just because it's directed at the people of the Trust isn't in itself reason to wholly condemn it.
As is the nature of this message board its easy to get riled and come out with stuff - I mean, I've even done it once or twice - but be fair to all posters no matter who you are friends with or respect.
Firm but fair.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
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.
As regards criticism of the Trust, that is exactly what I have done.
As for Westx, you only need to briefly scan his posting history to realise he is some sort of ringer, who came out of nowhere in mid September and immediately started posting multiple threads regarding US investors.
My WAG is he is MoscowJack, but I could easily be wrong about that.
Trust Position Revisited on 14:26 - Nov 7 by westx
its not an attack just a simple observation that mr shaky (who clearly is your pal and someone you know personally) should actually make his criticism properly and via the right channels but he made it clear in his toys out of the pram moment last weekend that he had no intention of doing that
therefore it is pretty safe to assume in my head that any action the trust will take will not be formed by a faceless person on an internet forum. and that gives me great comfort to be honest no matter how well qualified shakes may be he has made his position clear so I would imagine those in power will continue to ignore him
as it should be
Maybe...
But on a separate but appropriate note.
Have you used industrial lingo like that to posters?
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Trust Position Revisited on 14:26 - Nov 7 by Darran
He's not a Swan's fan Mate he's admitted it in the past,he's just on a wind up.
[Post edited 7 Nov 2014 14:32]
Not now Darran is it, please... have something of note or relevance to say or look on the non football board to make your wonderfully insightful comments of f*ck him...
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Trust Position Revisited on 14:29 - Nov 7 by Shaky
As regards criticism of the Trust, that is exactly what I have done.
As for Westx, you only need to briefly scan his posting history to realise he is some sort of ringer, who came out of nowhere in mid September and immediately started posting multiple threads regarding US investors.
My WAG is he is MoscowJack, but I could easily be wrong about that.
Trust Position Revisited on 14:26 - Nov 7 by jackonicko
So, if they bought some shares, and joined board meetings once a month, that would count as bringing marketing expertise?
They're going to have to be bloody good to make a difference in that one hour a month!
There is no information out there yet to suggest they're doing anything more than that.
No, but once on board I'm sure their people would take care of all that sort of stuff. I mean, it would be their club to do what the hell they want to do with it.
So they come in, so do their people, we perhaps see money for new stadium expansion, a new club shop(?), us being marketed in the US(?) or just improve our commercial activities... we see how we go.
It could be great, I'm sure we all think that at the back of our minds....but, it's not the club as we knew it then, and what the future has in store is anybody's business.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Trust Position Revisited on 14:29 - Nov 7 by Shaky
As regards criticism of the Trust, that is exactly what I have done.
As for Westx, you only need to briefly scan his posting history to realise he is some sort of ringer, who came out of nowhere in mid September and immediately started posting multiple threads regarding US investors.
My WAG is he is MoscowJack, but I could easily be wrong about that.
Hmmm... interesting Shakes.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
No, but once on board I'm sure their people would take care of all that sort of stuff. I mean, it would be their club to do what the hell they want to do with it.
So they come in, so do their people, we perhaps see money for new stadium expansion, a new club shop(?), us being marketed in the US(?) or just improve our commercial activities... we see how we go.
It could be great, I'm sure we all think that at the back of our minds....but, it's not the club as we knew it then, and what the future has in store is anybody's business.
You may be right. But you absolutely cannot be 'sure' any of that is going to happen.
You could just as equally be sure that they will attend the odd board meeting and wait for the next rights deal. Until we have more information on their plans, either is an equally plausible outcome.
0
Trust Position Revisited on 14:51 - Nov 7 with 1278 views
Trust Position Revisited on 14:50 - Nov 7 by jackonicko
You may be right. But you absolutely cannot be 'sure' any of that is going to happen.
You could just as equally be sure that they will attend the odd board meeting and wait for the next rights deal. Until we have more information on their plans, either is an equally plausible outcome.
Great post and of course you're correct.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
come come Chris. You have called out both Perchrock and Darran for posting what you believe to be irrelevant crap. Show some consistency and call out the Wolf of Squirrel Street for posting his little links to youtube!
0
Trust Position Revisited on 14:55 - Nov 7 with 1263 views
The Indyeleven had only been in existance for months and were playing in the regional NASL. Whats more they were rubbish and lost most games. They still averaged about 10,000 per game, reaching capacity for the stadium, and their supporters were ridiculously enthusiastic.
HOWEVER. US sports supporters and their local media follow their local Gridiron, baseball, basketball, hockey, and college sports teams most of the time. Once they get a better quality of football over there and more teams in the medium sized cities and a proper league pyramid, any interest in the Premier league will be peripheral. In the long run, I really couldnt see those Hoosiers having much interest in Swansea City to be honest. The Americans are not exactly famed for watching non-US sports teams.
Maybe some of our US correspondents have a feel for this ?
(I do accept that there were those massive attendances for Madrid, Manure, Liverpool etc for that tournament over there. Cant understand it myself, who'd want to watch that lot? )
If you can fill the unforgiving minute.
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
0
Trust Position Revisited on 15:10 - Nov 7 with 1234 views
Trust Position Revisited on 14:53 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001
come come Chris. You have called out both Perchrock and Darran for posting what you believe to be irrelevant crap. Show some consistency and call out the Wolf of Squirrel Street for posting his little links to youtube!
Irrelevant?
Did you listen to it? "Came outta nowhere....and then he disappeared" It was so relevant it was almost prophetic.
And a sample - FWIW - that wasn't used in the Sasha mix on the B side. which is the version that used to take the roof off in all the big clubs.
On another note, you're a busy little note taker too, aren't ya Lisa? Interesting.
Trust Position Revisited on 14:50 - Nov 7 by jackonicko
You may be right. But you absolutely cannot be 'sure' any of that is going to happen.
You could just as equally be sure that they will attend the odd board meeting and wait for the next rights deal. Until we have more information on their plans, either is an equally plausible outcome.
The only reason I think that, and I maybe naive here, is that I'd hope the current directors would be sounding all this out, hence the "trust us" mantra making its way to the media.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Trust Position Revisited on 15:10 - Nov 7 by Shaky
Irrelevant?
Did you listen to it? "Came outta nowhere....and then he disappeared" It was so relevant it was almost prophetic.
And a sample - FWIW - that wasn't used in the Sasha mix on the B side. which is the version that used to take the roof off in all the big clubs.
On another note, you're a busy little note taker too, aren't ya Lisa? Interesting.
not a note taker Shakes, I just have a memory that works that's all.
You keep accusing everyone of being someone else. You accused me once of being MoscowJack as well - he's obviously your fall back position in these circumstances !
Oh, and re the song - no, I didn't listen to it, nor the B side. Not a great fan of 'clubbing' type stuff to be honest, it's not really my thing, although a guy I know very well has a son who is one of the big club DJs and a very nice guy he is too (and had a partner at that time who was an interesting person to meet as well).
0
Trust Position Revisited on 15:20 - Nov 7 with 1220 views
Trust Position Revisited on 14:53 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001
come come Chris. You have called out both Perchrock and Darran for posting what you believe to be irrelevant crap. Show some consistency and call out the Wolf of Squirrel Street for posting his little links to youtube!
Aye aye Lis... lets get stuck in then... It's not as if this topic isn't quite important or anything.
lets get the "squirrels" out??!
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
The only reason I think that, and I maybe naive here, is that I'd hope the current directors would be sounding all this out, hence the "trust us" mantra making its way to the media.
The problem as I see it Chris is this.
If the current lot want to sell, and their shares pass to a new US investor, that, in itself, as you know, hasn't resulted in any funds coming in to the club. Now let's say that Huw is speaking the truth (albeit not the whole truth necessarily) and the initial plan is for that new investor to take a minority stake, and to bring lots of valuable expertise and investment.
So what next? No money is in the club at that point. So then let's say that the investors are prepared to put in new money to the club. What do they do to do that? Well they could put in equity or loans. The only way of putting in new equity (rather than buying out existing shareholders which doesn't benefit the club) is by issuing new shares. This could either be dilutive (which the existing owners wouldn't go for - why should they) or not (by issuing prefs for example, which was the solution that Shaky was alluding to the other day). But there would need to be a return on that. Again, as Shaky pointed out, there may be a number of ways in which they get that return - either with a fixed cash return (like an interest rate if you like) or by some sort of conversion mechanism to ordinary shares (which is again dilutive for existing shareholders).
Or they could put in straight debt with all that that brings.
The issue is that whatever mechanism is used, when it comes down to it, people put in money for a return. Either they will end up owning the club (whether by issuing shares which dilutes the others, or by having convertible pref shares or similar which end up diluting the others) or they will end up holding debt (whether loans / preference shares with a fixed coupon etc it doesn't much matter).
0
Trust Position Revisited on 16:28 - Nov 7 with 1158 views
Trust Position Revisited on 15:35 - Nov 7 by londonlisa2001
The problem as I see it Chris is this.
If the current lot want to sell, and their shares pass to a new US investor, that, in itself, as you know, hasn't resulted in any funds coming in to the club. Now let's say that Huw is speaking the truth (albeit not the whole truth necessarily) and the initial plan is for that new investor to take a minority stake, and to bring lots of valuable expertise and investment.
So what next? No money is in the club at that point. So then let's say that the investors are prepared to put in new money to the club. What do they do to do that? Well they could put in equity or loans. The only way of putting in new equity (rather than buying out existing shareholders which doesn't benefit the club) is by issuing new shares. This could either be dilutive (which the existing owners wouldn't go for - why should they) or not (by issuing prefs for example, which was the solution that Shaky was alluding to the other day). But there would need to be a return on that. Again, as Shaky pointed out, there may be a number of ways in which they get that return - either with a fixed cash return (like an interest rate if you like) or by some sort of conversion mechanism to ordinary shares (which is again dilutive for existing shareholders).
Or they could put in straight debt with all that that brings.
The issue is that whatever mechanism is used, when it comes down to it, people put in money for a return. Either they will end up owning the club (whether by issuing shares which dilutes the others, or by having convertible pref shares or similar which end up diluting the others) or they will end up holding debt (whether loans / preference shares with a fixed coupon etc it doesn't much matter).
No but you're missing the point just slightly (I think)
What i'm trying to say is, that by then, that problem as you call it, wouldn't be our problem. The club wouldn't be "ours" anymore.
So the "what next" bit will have no real relevance to us and we'd simply become just supporters of a football club, or not, depends on how everyone felt, I guess, at being owned by venture capitalists from overseas. This could be as successful as Man City or Chelsea or has desperate as cardiff city or Porstsmouth.
Either way, unless we right now as a Supporters Trust have any means, legal or otherwise, to block the deal and make sure the other shareholders don't sell their stake in the club, we will be powerless and just have to face our fate head on and decide what best to do with the proceeds from the 21.1% share in the club.
As I'm guessing we could be faced with selling our share for the best price possible as our only feasible option? This would mean, of course that we were indeed powerless with just 21.1% ownership compared to the other stakeholders who want out.
As far as i'm concerned now and all these rumours are enough for this to be of major concern to the fanbase; I think it's time the Trust start revealing what they know and what it is exactly that is being negotiated.
There's info out there... let's have it.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
No but you're missing the point just slightly (I think)
What i'm trying to say is, that by then, that problem as you call it, wouldn't be our problem. The club wouldn't be "ours" anymore.
So the "what next" bit will have no real relevance to us and we'd simply become just supporters of a football club, or not, depends on how everyone felt, I guess, at being owned by venture capitalists from overseas. This could be as successful as Man City or Chelsea or has desperate as cardiff city or Porstsmouth.
Either way, unless we right now as a Supporters Trust have any means, legal or otherwise, to block the deal and make sure the other shareholders don't sell their stake in the club, we will be powerless and just have to face our fate head on and decide what best to do with the proceeds from the 21.1% share in the club.
As I'm guessing we could be faced with selling our share for the best price possible as our only feasible option? This would mean, of course that we were indeed powerless with just 21.1% ownership compared to the other stakeholders who want out.
As far as i'm concerned now and all these rumours are enough for this to be of major concern to the fanbase; I think it's time the Trust start revealing what they know and what it is exactly that is being negotiated.
There's info out there... let's have it.
no I'm not missing that point at all.
I think we're saying the same thing. The point i was trying to make (and was making earlier to Shaky when i said he was starting from the wrong place) is that the mechanisms used to get the actual investment in to the club are a little incidental. It's the initial change of ownership (or subsequent change of ownership over time) which changes everything and of the current owners want to sell, a change in ownership is inevitable.
I agree re the stopping it at source therefore if at all possible.
To be honest, the place where I think I'm different to many on here (and I actually agree with Shaky I think) is that in a well run business, with the current ownership structure, I don't understand the complete aversion to debt. I would prefer, if we genuinely need substantial funds to continue to progress (and I'm not sure this has been proven to be honest) to see our current ownership maintained and for us to take out a reasonable amount of debt. As long as it can be serviced, and is not at a level where it threatens our existence (even if relegated), I can't see the problem as such. The issue though, is that is not really what is meant when they say 'we need investment'. What they actually mean is 'we want to sell our stake and cash in'.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
) 
