| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... 12:14 - Apr 4 with 6395 views | Ferryjack123 |
The first thing surely they need to do is get Manning to sign a new contract.. It would be a massive positive to have him here next season.. |  | | |  |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 19:44 - Apr 4 with 2534 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 18:32 - Apr 4 by magicdaps10 |
Oh yes, I am aware 😉
Always plenty of rumours flying about with these types of things.......i received a DM from a poster on here a few months regards happenings and passed it off.......seems that there was some truth in it all. |
You didn’t need a DM from anyone, they are open in their business model of investors and it has been public knowledge for quite some time.
These are the Trust minutes from January
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/January-2023-WEB
“ Potential Investment- the owners have been speaking to potential investors over the past few months. The club will update us if any investment is confirmed”. |  |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 20:22 - Apr 4 with 2494 views | KeithHaynes |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 19:44 - Apr 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
You didn’t need a DM from anyone, they are open in their business model of investors and it has been public knowledge for quite some time.
These are the Trust minutes from January
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/January-2023-WEB
“ Potential Investment- the owners have been speaking to potential investors over the past few months. The club will update us if any investment is confirmed”. |
So they were told. |  |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 10:54 - Apr 5 with 2253 views | ThurrockJack92 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 19:33 - Apr 4 by Whiterockin |
The club was valued at £100m, they originally paid about £60M for their shares, didn't they? So basically a £20M loss, possibly only £5M if we were promoted within 5 years. Obviously excluding any money they have put in since. Or am I way off the mark? |
Could see them taking that deal given where we are now and where we were when they bought the shares. Though outside of some mad billionaire with money to burn, I cannot see who would pay that for us. |  | | |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 11:06 - Apr 5 with 2231 views | Dr_Winston |
I would imagine that any "loss" related to the original purchase price has mostly been offset by investments elsewhere or tax writeoffs. Kaplan's investment alone (and he was the biggest fish by some margin) has long been exceeded by his gains at DC United.
These people don't see losses the way normal people do. The occasional losing bet is a part of business. What they don't want to see is serious ongoing deficits that result in continuing losses, which is why they cut things to the bone after relegation.
Now we're a small part of the picture, albeit one that could potentially provide a good return in the future given good management and a good season. They're in no rush to spend big, but neither do they want to offload any time soon. Spreading the risk suits them just fine. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 14:49 - Apr 5 with 2089 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 11:06 - Apr 5 by Dr_Winston |
I would imagine that any "loss" related to the original purchase price has mostly been offset by investments elsewhere or tax writeoffs. Kaplan's investment alone (and he was the biggest fish by some margin) has long been exceeded by his gains at DC United.
These people don't see losses the way normal people do. The occasional losing bet is a part of business. What they don't want to see is serious ongoing deficits that result in continuing losses, which is why they cut things to the bone after relegation.
Now we're a small part of the picture, albeit one that could potentially provide a good return in the future given good management and a good season. They're in no rush to spend big, but neither do they want to offload any time soon. Spreading the risk suits them just fine. |
DC United is worth a whopping $650m but it is tied up in assets including the Stadium Levien got built.
Personally I would love to see synergies between DC and Swansea who play at different times of the year. Swansea fans claim the DC players are vastly inferior to Swansea players. In that case Swansea promising young player like Rushesha and Abdullai should be able perform out there over the summer. Even Patterson could get a summer stretch out there having not contributed much this season.
Selling Swansea might be tied in with selling DC United as Kaplan is getting on. Profits on the DC sale offset by losses on Swansea to reduce the capital gains tax bill. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 17:13 - Apr 5 with 2005 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 19:33 - Apr 4 by Whiterockin |
The club was valued at £100m, they originally paid about £60M for their shares, didn't they? So basically a £20M loss, possibly only £5M if we were promoted within 5 years. Obviously excluding any money they have put in since. Or am I way off the mark? |
I think they paid £69m for 69% of the club. This left 21% for the Trust and 10% Morgan and Jenkins.
The have invested another £16m with Silverstein making a total of £85m. With this investment they own 81% of the club with 13% owner by the Trust and 3% each by Morgan and Jenkins perhaps?.
Dilution and issuing new shares is not the best way to own bigger chunks of the club clearly if my understanding is correct. They own 12% more of the club by buying £16m more shares. The is presupposes that the £16m has been put intot the CLN on shares purchases and not still partly as a loan. (i have lost a few already)
If the US guys wanted 81% of the shares they could have bought them (16%) off the Other shareholder more cheaply. (around £6.4m not £16m*)
* This assumes £16m has gone into the CLN and not left as a loan.
If the club got back to the PL and sold for a conservative £150m (Burnley £200m) they would recover £121m for £85m invested. They would attempt to buy the ground outright I presume (say £35M) to knock the price up to Bunley levels.
Love a bit of Burnley bingo! | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 17:43 - Apr 5 with 1987 views | SullutaCreturned |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 17:13 - Apr 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I think they paid £69m for 69% of the club. This left 21% for the Trust and 10% Morgan and Jenkins.
The have invested another £16m with Silverstein making a total of £85m. With this investment they own 81% of the club with 13% owner by the Trust and 3% each by Morgan and Jenkins perhaps?.
Dilution and issuing new shares is not the best way to own bigger chunks of the club clearly if my understanding is correct. They own 12% more of the club by buying £16m more shares. The is presupposes that the £16m has been put intot the CLN on shares purchases and not still partly as a loan. (i have lost a few already)
If the US guys wanted 81% of the shares they could have bought them (16%) off the Other shareholder more cheaply. (around £6.4m not £16m*)
* This assumes £16m has gone into the CLN and not left as a loan.
If the club got back to the PL and sold for a conservative £150m (Burnley £200m) they would recover £121m for £85m invested. They would attempt to buy the ground outright I presume (say £35M) to knock the price up to Bunley levels.
Love a bit of Burnley bingo! |
You think the stadium is worth 35 million? I have looked but I cannot find a valuation. Where did you get that figure from?
In 2016 it was said to be around 20 million u the WoL. | | | |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 18:40 - Apr 5 with 1926 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 17:43 - Apr 5 by SullutaCreturned |
You think the stadium is worth 35 million? I have looked but I cannot find a valuation. Where did you get that figure from?
In 2016 it was said to be around 20 million u the WoL. |
Ball park estimate. I think I read somewhere £23m was the construction cost. Was it biut roughly 15 years ago?
£35m is the original price plus an average 3-4% inflation.
When quoted Swansea being worth £200m the same as Burnley the cynics said I was way off because they owned their own ground . So assuming all other things equal you figures would value SCFC at £180m and I would rate it at £165m. Burnley was sold 18 monyths ago aso that might have gone up.
All back of a fag packet stuff of course. WoL have their own fag packet. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 13:10 - Apr 7 with 1713 views | Rhonnda_Jack |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 17:43 - Apr 5 by SullutaCreturned |
You think the stadium is worth 35 million? I have looked but I cannot find a valuation. Where did you get that figure from?
In 2016 it was said to be around 20 million u the WoL. |
The stadium is owned by Swansea Council . Not a club asset | | | |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 13:51 - Apr 7 with 1663 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 13:10 - Apr 7 by Rhonnda_Jack |
The stadium is owned by Swansea Council . Not a club asset |
The club technically 'owns' the stadium but it is a little complex. It owns it for a fixed period. I believe it was 30 or 35 years. This means they club (A Welsh US joint venture) can do what they like with it subject to planing rules over that period.
They cannot redevelop it for housing for example as the council would not grant them planning permission and they have a deal with the Ospreys. They can however expand or re-design the stadium and use it for any sporting activities concerts events etc.
If the Swansea council said they wanted to use it (you say they are the owners) the club could refuse or ask for a fee off the council as I understand it. So I doubt the council are the owners. They will be in 30 years though.
This is my understanding. SCFC own the stadium for another 25-30 years.
It was explained on another forum as a typical long term commercial ownership deal loved by Supermarket chains. Typically they would want total control of a site for a 30 year period and then hand it back. They can sell their ownership.
I have learned quite a bit on forums like this but not an expert. Here is a list of things I have learned for forums followed by some limited personal research.
Tag on agreement
Drag of agreements
25% ownership veto rights
Commercial letting agreement
Shareholders agreements
Unfair prejudice
Protected rights
Trust model rules
Hedge fund rules
Banking in Delaware
Oaktree Financial Management
Distressed companies turnaround specialists and venture capitalists. [Post edited 7 Apr 2023 14:02]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 14:00 - Apr 7 with 1648 views | max936 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 13:51 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The club technically 'owns' the stadium but it is a little complex. It owns it for a fixed period. I believe it was 30 or 35 years. This means they club (A Welsh US joint venture) can do what they like with it subject to planing rules over that period.
They cannot redevelop it for housing for example as the council would not grant them planning permission and they have a deal with the Ospreys. They can however expand or re-design the stadium and use it for any sporting activities concerts events etc.
If the Swansea council said they wanted to use it (you say they are the owners) the club could refuse or ask for a fee off the council as I understand it. So I doubt the council are the owners. They will be in 30 years though.
This is my understanding. SCFC own the stadium for another 25-30 years.
It was explained on another forum as a typical long term commercial ownership deal loved by Supermarket chains. Typically they would want total control of a site for a 30 year period and then hand it back. They can sell their ownership.
I have learned quite a bit on forums like this but not an expert. Here is a list of things I have learned for forums followed by some limited personal research.
Tag on agreement
Drag of agreements
25% ownership veto rights
Commercial letting agreement
Shareholders agreements
Unfair prejudice
Protected rights
Trust model rules
Hedge fund rules
Banking in Delaware
Oaktree Financial Management
Distressed companies turnaround specialists and venture capitalists. [Post edited 7 Apr 2023 14:02]
|
They own the lease not the stadium, they paid Swansea City Council 300k for the lease. |  |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 14:21 - Apr 7 with 1612 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 14:00 - Apr 7 by max936 |
They own the lease not the stadium, they paid Swansea City Council 300k for the lease. |
The stadium is under the control of Swansea city until 2054 under a 37 year lease agreement. These commercial leases are favoured by supermarkets as I explained.
Lucky you do not work for the council because the lease is for £300k PER SEASON. They get £100k of that back of Swansea,.com and more from all the other advertisers concerts seminars etc
If you want to do a function as the Swansea.com stadium do not contact the council. They can demolish a stand and rebuild it if they want. It is not as simple as you suggest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-43096691
What happened with the 3 G pitches? The Trust will be on top of that no doubt? [Post edited 7 Apr 2023 14:22]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 16:00 - Apr 7 with 1558 views | max936 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 14:21 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The stadium is under the control of Swansea city until 2054 under a 37 year lease agreement. These commercial leases are favoured by supermarkets as I explained.
Lucky you do not work for the council because the lease is for £300k PER SEASON. They get £100k of that back of Swansea,.com and more from all the other advertisers concerts seminars etc
If you want to do a function as the Swansea.com stadium do not contact the council. They can demolish a stand and rebuild it if they want. It is not as simple as you suggest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-43096691
What happened with the 3 G pitches? The Trust will be on top of that no doubt? [Post edited 7 Apr 2023 14:22]
|
Its still just a lease, it can be a 99yr lease or whatever they may well control it, but they still don't own the Stadium.
"This is a deal that benefits both the Swans and Ospreys by providing them with the freedom to commercial the stadium," said council leader Rob Stewart.
"And the council tax payers who will not only receive an income, but also additional money from any stadium naming rights and shirt sponsor deals will help deliver new 3G pitches across the authority."
Swans majority shareholders Steve Kaplan and Jason Levien said the agreement puts the club "firmly in control of its own destiny".
What's the Trust got to do with anything??? you're obsessed | |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 17:49 - Apr 7 with 1509 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 16:00 - Apr 7 by max936 |
Its still just a lease, it can be a 99yr lease or whatever they may well control it, but they still don't own the Stadium.
"This is a deal that benefits both the Swans and Ospreys by providing them with the freedom to commercial the stadium," said council leader Rob Stewart.
"And the council tax payers who will not only receive an income, but also additional money from any stadium naming rights and shirt sponsor deals will help deliver new 3G pitches across the authority."
Swans majority shareholders Steve Kaplan and Jason Levien said the agreement puts the club "firmly in control of its own destiny".
What's the Trust got to do with anything??? you're obsessed |
It is a commercial lease that give the cub control over the stadium. As part of the deal they give the Council a percentage of profitssuch as advertising. You stated the bought the lease for £300k. Oh dear.
I included a piece from the BBC relating to 3G pitches for the young kids in Swansea. No one knows if this part of the agreement has been honoured. No one it seems actually cares. The Trust are also due £500k from the CLN agreement, Has it been paid?
The Trust have a job to do and football future in Swansea is part of their remit. The 3G pitches issue is right up their street.
Fans get up tight about stuff but have no appetite for the details. I have a very low regard for the Trust which is not fit for purpose and should be wound up. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 18:09 - Apr 7 with 1481 views | max936 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 17:49 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is a commercial lease that give the cub control over the stadium. As part of the deal they give the Council a percentage of profitssuch as advertising. You stated the bought the lease for £300k. Oh dear.
I included a piece from the BBC relating to 3G pitches for the young kids in Swansea. No one knows if this part of the agreement has been honoured. No one it seems actually cares. The Trust are also due £500k from the CLN agreement, Has it been paid?
The Trust have a job to do and football future in Swansea is part of their remit. The 3G pitches issue is right up their street.
Fans get up tight about stuff but have no appetite for the details. I have a very low regard for the Trust which is not fit for purpose and should be wound up. |
Control is not ownership.
If I rent a house and I've got a contract to say that I can rent that house for whatever many years, I will have control and responsibility for the house, it won't mean that I own the house.
How much did they buy the lease for then.? Cause I thought that was a figure I saw at the time. Perhaps its 300k a year then, if that's correct then I got it wrong, I can live with that,
You obviously know better, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and I could well be wrong, but I'm not afraid to admit, I'm been wrong on far far more important things than a post on a football form
There's no Oh dear about it as it makes no difference to anything if I'm wrong, except to maybe make you happy enjoy it.
Just Checked and you are right and I'm wrong, it happens, luckily for you I don't keep score  [Post edited 7 Apr 2023 19:14]
| |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 20:36 - Apr 7 with 1370 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 18:09 - Apr 7 by max936 |
Control is not ownership.
If I rent a house and I've got a contract to say that I can rent that house for whatever many years, I will have control and responsibility for the house, it won't mean that I own the house.
How much did they buy the lease for then.? Cause I thought that was a figure I saw at the time. Perhaps its 300k a year then, if that's correct then I got it wrong, I can live with that,
You obviously know better, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and I could well be wrong, but I'm not afraid to admit, I'm been wrong on far far more important things than a post on a football form
There's no Oh dear about it as it makes no difference to anything if I'm wrong, except to maybe make you happy enjoy it.
Just Checked and you are right and I'm wrong, it happens, luckily for you I don't keep score [Post edited 7 Apr 2023 19:14]
|
This commercial leases is not a simple business and as I said forums can be a good educational experience.
The deal was explained to me as similar to the one Tesco and co might have. One would not argue on that basis that Tesco do not 'effectively own' that store building. When the 30 -40 lease is over the store goes back to the land owner who can keep it of demolish it. B and M for example might want to retain the structure. There are various ToysRus about the place.
I have been wrong on many things. I thought Jordan Garrick would be a great player for Swansea. I thought Craig Bellamy's academy in Sierra Leone was a smart tax dodge using sophisticated tax advisors. (that was a whopper to be honest) | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 21:08 - Apr 7 with 1347 views | SullutaCreturned |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 20:36 - Apr 7 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This commercial leases is not a simple business and as I said forums can be a good educational experience.
The deal was explained to me as similar to the one Tesco and co might have. One would not argue on that basis that Tesco do not 'effectively own' that store building. When the 30 -40 lease is over the store goes back to the land owner who can keep it of demolish it. B and M for example might want to retain the structure. There are various ToysRus about the place.
I have been wrong on many things. I thought Jordan Garrick would be a great player for Swansea. I thought Craig Bellamy's academy in Sierra Leone was a smart tax dodge using sophisticated tax advisors. (that was a whopper to be honest) |
SCFC do not own the stadium, they cannot sell the stadium as part of any deal though they will include the ease in the deal.
If I rent a vehicle commercially, I do not own the vehicle. We do NOT own the stadium.
When comparing Swansea with Burnley you give us a fairly equal billing which is wrong, Burnley have a far more valuable squad. | | | |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 21:56 - Apr 7 with 1318 views | max936 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 21:08 - Apr 7 by SullutaCreturned |
SCFC do not own the stadium, they cannot sell the stadium as part of any deal though they will include the ease in the deal.
If I rent a vehicle commercially, I do not own the vehicle. We do NOT own the stadium.
When comparing Swansea with Burnley you give us a fairly equal billing which is wrong, Burnley have a far more valuable squad. |
Don't bother Cat, we're being educated mun. | |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 22:02 - Apr 7 with 1293 views | Whiterockin |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 21:56 - Apr 7 by max936 |
Don't bother Cat, we're being educated mun. |
Can you remember the thick teacher in school. Every school had one. |  | | |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 22:43 - Apr 7 with 1236 views | STID2017 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 22:02 - Apr 7 by Whiterockin |
Can you remember the thick teacher in school. Every school had one. |
Think my school had everyone else's share ðŸ˜
I agree with your point though in all seriousness |  |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 11:52 - Apr 8 with 1077 views | SullutaCreturned |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 21:56 - Apr 7 by max936 |
Don't bother Cat, we're being educated mun. |
To be fair I need educating but by somebody who knows what they're talking about.
We don't see Lohengrin on here anymore, sad. Davillin is sadly missed. Both very clever and witty posters. | | | |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 12:03 - Apr 8 with 1069 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 21:08 - Apr 7 by SullutaCreturned |
SCFC do not own the stadium, they cannot sell the stadium as part of any deal though they will include the ease in the deal.
If I rent a vehicle commercially, I do not own the vehicle. We do NOT own the stadium.
When comparing Swansea with Burnley you give us a fairly equal billing which is wrong, Burnley have a far more valuable squad. |
The are effectively in control of the stadium for the 37 years. You are making the same mistake as Max by comparing it to a house or car. They are not comparable.
I have explained the stadium "belongs " to the club for the term of the agreement. They take all the advertising revenue all the concert fees seminar fees the naming rights. They have agreed to give the council a "cut". The "Yanks" are helping the taxpayer in reality.
They can also redevelop the stadium as they see fit. (Planning is controlled by Swansea council so they could object). You cannot take your leased car to your mechanic mate to put on a sun roof for the summer.
I am not a teacher but refer people like you to do research if you are minded. I gave a list of thing I have learned in following Swansea. Of course you run into forum professionals who specialising in put downs while knowing next to nothing.
Swansea's valuation would be similar to Burnley's if the club got to the Premier league is my argument. To do that it would need a stronger squad. Burnley have 3 ex Swans and player like Barnes Gudmusen and Brownhill who are not world beaters. Their stars are lone players in the main.
On your first point the US people could possibly sell their rights to the stadium (for 30 years+) to someone else but this is my guess. It depends on the agreement. A property management company for example.
I try to direct people people to understanding and just get called a "thick teacher". It is the way of forums and the modern world where looking smart to your peers is the important thing. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 12:15 - Apr 8 with 1054 views | max936 |
| If this new investment/takeover is true then.... on 12:03 - Apr 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The are effectively in control of the stadium for the 37 years. You are making the same mistake as Max by comparing it to a house or car. They are not comparable.
I have explained the stadium "belongs " to the club for the term of the agreement. They take all the advertising revenue all the concert fees seminar fees the naming rights. They have agreed to give the council a "cut". The "Yanks" are helping the taxpayer in reality.
They can also redevelop the stadium as they see fit. (Planning is controlled by Swansea council so they could object). You cannot take your leased car to your mechanic mate to put on a sun roof for the summer.
I am not a teacher but refer people like you to do research if you are minded. I gave a list of thing I have learned in following Swansea. Of course you run into forum professionals who specialising in put downs while knowing next to nothing.
Swansea's valuation would be similar to Burnley's if the club got to the Premier league is my argument. To do that it would need a stronger squad. Burnley have 3 ex Swans and player like Barnes Gudmusen and Brownhill who are not world beaters. Their stars are lone players in the main.
On your first point the US people could possibly sell their rights to the stadium (for 30 years+) to someone else but this is my guess. It depends on the agreement. A property management company for example.
I try to direct people people to understanding and just get called a "thick teacher". It is the way of forums and the modern world where looking smart to your peers is the important thing. |
The Sun's shinning and its quite warm in the sun, so take the opportunity to have the day off to enjoy this weather  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
