| American owners 20:58 - Sep 25 with 31343 views | westx |
Any truth in the rumours that we are about to be sold to some Americans? |  |
| |  |
| American owners on 18:49 - Oct 1 with 2058 views | Davillin |
| American owners on 13:32 - Sep 26 by dickythorpe |
His graphs would be available to buy outside the stadium. |
"I'm Nobody! Who are you?" by Emily Dickinson
I'm Nobody! Who are you?
Are you -- Nobody -- Too?
Then there's a pair of us!
Don't tell! they'd advertise -- you know!
How dreary -- to be -- Somebody!
How public -- like a Frog --
To tell one's name -- the livelong June --
To an admiring Bog! |  |
| |
| American owners on 18:50 - Oct 1 with 2057 views | Neath_Jack |
Talk of challenging for the top 6 is a bit silly if you ask me, it's a wonderful notion but realistic? There's nothing to say we couldn't fluke a high finish one year, but there's nothing to say we won't get relegated either, investment or not. People don't half get carried away, it was only a season or two back when quite a few on here were making out that Liverpool were our rivals, one of the biggest clubs in the world. There's probably a happy medium to be found somewhere, very doubtful that place is Planet Swans mind. |  |
| |
| American owners on 18:52 - Oct 1 with 2050 views | Davillin |
| American owners on 21:41 - Sep 25 by Phil_S |
I'd need to stand down as Trust Chairman then as he has told me he will delete all my emails without reading them |
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. | |
| |
| American owners on 19:00 - Oct 1 with 2017 views | Darran |
| American owners on 18:50 - Oct 1 by Neath_Jack |
Talk of challenging for the top 6 is a bit silly if you ask me, it's a wonderful notion but realistic? There's nothing to say we couldn't fluke a high finish one year, but there's nothing to say we won't get relegated either, investment or not. People don't half get carried away, it was only a season or two back when quite a few on here were making out that Liverpool were our rivals, one of the biggest clubs in the world. There's probably a happy medium to be found somewhere, very doubtful that place is Planet Swans mind. |
The only bit of that I disagree with is the mention of Planetswans,it isn't just Planetswans its everywhere.
Some people are f*cking deluded. |  |
| |
| American owners on 19:02 - Oct 1 with 2015 views | bargoedjack |
| American owners on 21:34 - Sep 25 by MrSwerve |
Did they do it Tuesday? Damn I need to pay more attention  |
Too busy snogging your neighbour??? |  | | |
| American owners on 19:04 - Oct 1 with 2013 views | Chippy69 |
| American owners on 18:52 - Oct 1 by Davillin |
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. |
Speaking of god,you know why he gave people orgasm's
So the usa would no when to FU CKING STOP
FFS |  |
| They make us feel indebted
For saving us from hell
And then they put us through it
It's time the bastards fell
|
| |
| American owners on 19:08 - Oct 1 with 2001 views | Davillin |
| American owners on 09:29 - Sep 28 by Brynmill_Jack |
We could maybe get top 6 but it's not the transfer outlay that (slightly possibly) gets you success, it's a massive wage bill. One relegation and all that's left of the club will be a piece of scorched earth where the liberty once stood.
And the sound of the clanking gold chains of mercenary millionaire footballers off to their next big pay day.
Not in my f*cking name |
Your analysis is simple, straightforward, and deadly accurate. The first question is whether "money talks," and then whether "lots and lots of money talks louder." | |
| |
| American owners on 19:08 - Oct 1 with 2000 views | MrSwerve |
| American owners on 19:02 - Oct 1 by bargoedjack |
Too busy snogging your neighbour??? |
I was with my father so no... |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| American owners on 19:15 - Oct 1 with 1991 views | MrSwerve |
Not saying that we could ever be like Man City in terms of attendances etc, but look what they were doing before they had investment. They were a yo-yo team at best.
Money can do anything. I think some fans would rather take League 2 with 8-10k attendances over Champions League and investment, and 30-40k attendances. The key is to get investment without ripping the soul out of the club, which admittedly is difficult. We only have to look up the road to see how it can go wrong. | |
| |
| American owners on 19:19 - Oct 1 with 1980 views | Davillin |
| American owners on 18:19 - Sep 28 by londonlisa2001 |
Firstly, I have no idea whether there is any truth in the speculation - as i said before, I heard a rumour months ago, but dismissed it (have heard many over the years). I also tended to believe that the current shareholders didn't want to sell.
However, if a least some of them do want to sell, it makes the position somewhat different since at that point, you would imagine that there are a number of parties that could conceivably wish to buy a club that must be pretty much the most solvent of all premier league clubs.
The difficulty that the Trust has is explained well by Jackonicko and also in Nick's earlier post. The Trust doesn't own enough to really be able to make that much difference if the club is sold to a party that doesn't want the Trust on board, since at less than 25% it can't really block them from doing something, and a seat on the board becomes somewhat meaningless.
It is also entirely possible in that scenario that the new major shareholder could dilute the Trust down, simply by issuing shares. Although the Trust will have pre emption rights (the right to purchase more shares at the going rate to maintain its proportionate ownership) it is unlikely that they will have the funds to do that and will get diluted unless there are specific protections in any shareholder agreement that may exist (and we don't know that).
If the Trust is put in that position, i.e. where every other shareholder wishes to sell, it may actually be more of a protection in the long term to take the cash and keep it in case a crisis comes down the line. The reason being that under those circumstances they would have sold at the top of the market, so could buy the club or a part of the club back at a lower rate in the future (the reason that I say at the top of the market, is because if the value of the club continues to rise, it must be because new owners are not shafting it and there is instead continued success, in which case I guess everyone remains happy).
If, however, there is just one other shareholder that wants to stay in, with the Trust, as has been pointed out, that changes everything since certain actions of a majority shareholder require 75% support, and I think that any other single shareholder plus the Trust gives more than 25% voting power.
The difficulty in all of this, of course, is that no one here (or only a few, who are unlikely to say) knows what the individual financial circumstances are of the shareholders. It's easy to imagine that some may wish to make themselves cash multi millionaires (rather than theoretical millionaires) but it is also impossible to know whether one of the supposed 'rich already' shareholders may be in financial trouble with another business.
In terms of club value, it's basically going to be sold at the price someone is prepared to pay (and someone else is prepared to accept). It is a private company, there is no 'external share price' so a purchaser will value the club at what they think appropriate and an offer will be accepted or not. They'll do a whole range of calculations, but ultimately football clubs are not frequently bought and sold, and each one is very different, so any price will be very individual. For any of our board putting a figure on it - that will just be a 'round, gut feel' type price, not based on anything particularly substantive. |
Thanks for that analysis.
Regarding the 25% safety net, would it be outside the realm of possibility that one other shareholder could "combine" [there is no good legal term for it that I know] shares with the Trust and arrive at that number.
I can think of several ways it could be done if there is one shareholder who wants to not sell. I know you can think of more. | |
| |
| American owners on 19:34 - Oct 1 with 1933 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| American owners on 18:28 - Oct 1 by Oldjack |
it depends on how much money we get ,if it's anything like Man C receive then why not |
That's not allowed anymore, Alan.
You can't just get given £500m and spend it these days, you have to earn it.
It's why Man City are desperate to add as many seats as possible, gone are the days their owners could inject £50m and buy an Aguero etc. |  |
| |
| American owners on 19:50 - Oct 1 with 1898 views | Davillin |
I sense that some posters are using the words "investor" or "investment" a bit too loosely.
Someone who "invests" in a corporation absolutely expects to get two things in return: return on investment, and security of investment, normally meaning shares, although certain "manipulators" use other forms of security such as loans. [Some kind of "sponsorship" deal would not necessarily require shares, but the amount of money in such a transaction would not be worth worrying about.]
If I remember correctly, the corporation still have a significant number of authorized but not issued shares which could be sold to an "investor" without substantially affecting the strength of the other shareholders' shares, or, more important, their voting power.
If I'm wrong, then the matter does become sticky because the shares would have to come either from existing shareholders, or far worse, from newly authorized shares which would diminish the Trust's [and all other shareholders'] percentage of ownership.
It's shocking how deeply Swansea supporters must depend on the good intentions of a small number of people -- the shareholders. I find it relatively easy, however, to believe that the people who were willing to risk their money -- and a lot of it -- and business and personal reputation once before to save the club would change so dramatically now.
p.s. "Shareholders" must not be confused with "Board members." They are not one and the same, and an individual could be either without being the other. | |
| |
| American owners on 19:51 - Oct 1 with 1892 views | Shaky |
| American owners on 19:19 - Oct 1 by Davillin |
Thanks for that analysis.
Regarding the 25% safety net, would it be outside the realm of possibility that one other shareholder could "combine" [there is no good legal term for it that I know] shares with the Trust and arrive at that number.
I can think of several ways it could be done if there is one shareholder who wants to not sell. I know you can think of more. |
That's a great question St Davlon, to which the answer is of course it is bloody possible for shareholders to combine to create a block of more than 25%. And the correct term for this is a concert party.
A perhaps more pertinent question would be to ask the financial gurus Lisa and Jackinoclue to expound on what specifically the "25% safety net" represents. That is to say what corporate actions can be proactively implemented and which ones can be blocked at that threshold? |  |
| |
| American owners on 19:59 - Oct 1 with 1866 views | Dr_Winston |
| American owners on 17:22 - Oct 1 by pierre91 |
.......the whole point of running our Club successfully nowadays is dependent more and more each year on the finance we can generate.
Call me naive if you like but my reading of Huw Jenkins's statements with regard to further finance has leaned towards that - namely,we need extra finance to compete successfully.
Whilst I am generally supportive of this mindset I am regularly reminded by various bloggers/posters/fans that we've been a little bit tardy in employing within the Club some genuinely pertinent people who could take us along that road. I've read many posts on here that ask why we haven't yet employed a person as MD (or close) who could take us down that route. I agree.
So, my reading of HJ's suggestion that we need more investment to take us further is coloured by the fact that if I'd been in his shoes I'd have looked for an internal appointment to take us further.
Please don't get me wrong - my absolute abhorrence of some kind of "sugar-daddy" remains resolute - we need a Vincent Tan (they're all NOT Sheik Mansour) as much as we need a hole in the head.
My ultimate wish is that we capitalise on the the USA market (where we seem to have a decent and growing brand/frame ) and continue the steady growth we've shown decently over the last 10 years.
On that basis, it seems to me, we might have at least another 10yrs of progress to report. |
This is key for me. We seem to be jumping to Plan C when Plan B hasn't even been tried yet.
Had we hired a top level commercial director to try and raise revenues in that area and still come up dry then fair enough, looking for external investment is the next logical step. We haven't done that. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| American owners on 21:41 - Oct 1 with 1853 views | Phil_S |
Not sure what happened exactly but its back |  | | |
| American owners on 21:58 - Oct 1 with 1797 views | londonlisa2001 |
| American owners on 19:51 - Oct 1 by Shaky |
That's a great question St Davlon, to which the answer is of course it is bloody possible for shareholders to combine to create a block of more than 25%. And the correct term for this is a concert party.
A perhaps more pertinent question would be to ask the financial gurus Lisa and Jackinoclue to expound on what specifically the "25% safety net" represents. That is to say what corporate actions can be proactively implemented and which ones can be blocked at that threshold? |
as you well know Shaky a voting block of more than 25% can effectively stop any corporate actions that require the company to pass a special resolution, not least the waiver of pre emption rights on the issuing of new shares. I am not a lawyer though, so I'm sure that you can google the full list of actions that require a special resolution.... | | | |
| American owners on 22:04 - Oct 1 with 1767 views | ScoobyWho |
As I see it the club are only looking for investment and maybe extra sponsorship, does that constitute a takeover ?
No.
Does it constitute progression for the better good ?
Yes.
Again folks, read Jenkins words and compare his recent remarks since Laudrup,left. He is a wordsmith, don't be fooled. |  |
| |
| American owners on 22:35 - Oct 1 with 1679 views | Starsky |
| American owners on 11:13 - Oct 1 by mattjenkins1990 |
I am still backing the Board, if they think a foreign investor to come in and invest money is the next logical step for progression then so be it, they are Fans who put there own necks on the line to save the club in the past. I appreciate sometimes loyalties can be fragile when large sums of Cash are involved however I do not think any members would take a personal financial gain which would jeopardise the future of the Club especially as they are all pretty well off as it is.
I think the commercial side of the club does leave a lot to be desired, I live in London and there is no where here I could buy the new Swans shirt, merchandise etc however i can get nearly every other side's if i look, neutrals like the club showing admiration for our football and philosophy however the commercial side is not really pushed converting young Jacks from outside the city like the big clubs do, maybe an investment would shake things up enough to continue the sustainable growth, continue to provide facilities but also bolster the Swansea name as an established top flight club.
Who knows what the future holds but change is not always bad. [Post edited 1 Oct 2014 11:13]
|
With respect. I think you are being naive |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| American owners on 22:43 - Oct 1 with 1640 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 21:41 - Oct 1 by Phil_S |
Not sure what happened exactly but its back |
Can't believe Darran's been deleting threads again. Poor show. |  |
| |
| American owners on 23:12 - Oct 1 with 1570 views | Darran |
| American owners on 22:43 - Oct 1 by Uxbridge |
Can't believe Darran's been deleting threads again. Poor show. |
And reading PMs too. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz | |
| |
| American owners on 23:15 - Oct 1 with 1556 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 23:12 - Oct 1 by Darran |
And reading PMs too. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
That does explain a lot.
Funnily enough I did get a couple of texts during the Fans Forum telling me that someone had deleted the thread. We all agreed it was you. Can't all be wrong. | |
| |
| American owners on 23:16 - Oct 1 with 1548 views | Darran |
| American owners on 23:15 - Oct 1 by Uxbridge |
That does explain a lot.
Funnily enough I did get a couple of texts during the Fans Forum telling me that someone had deleted the thread. We all agreed it was you. Can't all be wrong. |
I haven't said anyone's wrong I'm agreeing mun. | |
| |
| American owners on 08:48 - Oct 2 with 1389 views | Le_Swans |
| American owners on 19:34 - Oct 1 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
That's not allowed anymore, Alan.
You can't just get given £500m and spend it these days, you have to earn it.
It's why Man City are desperate to add as many seats as possible, gone are the days their owners could inject £50m and buy an Aguero etc. |
I thought that the premier league went against the financial fair play thing? Isn't it just teams in European competitions and the football league that it affects? Hence why QPR will only get punished if they get relegated? And Man City's punishment is a reduced squad for the Champions league and a fine that's paid to UEFA and not the premier league. | | | |
| American owners on 12:07 - Oct 2 with 1302 views | Spratty |
| American owners on 16:44 - Oct 1 by Watchman |
We are not currently and likely never will be competing with the big 6 each season.
That attitude cost Laudrup his job! |
Funny how we beat quite a few of them under him huh (including as I recall the Champions League Champions, plus the Premier League Champions, plus Arsenal plus Liverpool all at theirs) as well as our first ever major cup and great European run — think what we could have done if he really had ambition  .
As for mention by another poster of never achieving 8th except by fluke….. we were one disallowed good goal (Brom at theirs) away from it the season before last (despite our disappointing final game against Fulham). We had a great Europa and FA cup run last season and a decent PL finish, despite our major key injuries. The likes of ManU, Liverpool and Everton are looking to be on poor form this season and the latter 2 distracted by Europe. Spurs are looking wobbly too. Even ManC not at their best and we outclassed the current main contenders Chelsea in the first half at theirs. Do we truly believe we cannot have a hope to emulate our previous achievements (made when the top teams were strong) with our current team and currently fortuitous downturn in some of the higher teams?
Laudrup said we needed more investment to realistically compete at the very top level of the PL in an ongoing basis, but his stated desire was merely to strengthen. Seems the Board agree. We have already upped our investment to get the team we currently have (which many see as our strongest team ever) including 2 quality strikers. As the post says “Swansea’s wage bill is bigger than it has been at any stage in their history” and quality free transfers are rarely free.
Personally I would rather the cut and thrust of achieving over the odds rather than the bland expectation of winning every game and being disappointed if we did not. Throwing masses of money at spoilt millionaires when at the end of the day they still may not perform — as we have in the past proved against them with heart, skill, style and overachievement — the latter is the greatest joy of our team for me. |  | | |
| American owners on 12:10 - Oct 2 with 1297 views | Spratty |
| American owners on 19:51 - Oct 1 by Shaky |
That's a great question St Davlon, to which the answer is of course it is bloody possible for shareholders to combine to create a block of more than 25%. And the correct term for this is a concert party.
A perhaps more pertinent question would be to ask the financial gurus Lisa and Jackinoclue to expound on what specifically the "25% safety net" represents. That is to say what corporate actions can be proactively implemented and which ones can be blocked at that threshold? |
Excellent I raised this question in the other thread about investment a few days ago. It seemed obvious there had to be some way of circumventing any acquisition block that may be put on the Trust by other shareholders (presumably due to concern that any additional control it would transfer would significantly dilute the attractiveness and therefore value of their shares).
Perhaps we need to forearm ourselves with more detail re viability / effectiveness / mechanism (if we have not already) so we could be prepared to move quickly should such and opportunity present itself. Of course would depend on the likelihood of the shareholders blocking such a Trust acquisition in the first place — but where potentially partially limiting massive shareholder profits, it is best to be prepared for all outcomes. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
