| American owners 20:58 - Sep 25 with 31468 views | westx |
Any truth in the rumours that we are about to be sold to some Americans? |  |
| |  |
| American owners on 18:52 - Sep 28 with 1645 views | Catullus |
If this is true, and bearing in mind all the hypothetical scenarios, it worries me.
We need new owners to be properly committed to the club, not a Tan. We also need them to be honest so not a Yeung who will get prosecuted and bring problems that way. Also not another Petty, for obvious reasons.
We need a Sheikh Mansour type, are there any of those out there and interested? And if it is the rumoured Americans, are they John Henry types? I could live with that!!!!!!!!!!
My other concern is, will the current board have their heads turned by the money and sell even if the deal could be precarious for the club going forwards?
As we all know, money talks!!
Oh to win 167 million on the euromillions eh!! | |
| |
| American owners on 18:57 - Sep 28 with 1634 views | max936 |
If some of the directors wish to sell couldn't the others including the trust buy them out? |  |
| |
| American owners on 18:59 - Sep 28 with 1622 views | MoscowJack |
Not if the selling ones want HUGE sums for their shares.
A reasonable price could be agreed, probably, but why would any of the Directors bother doing that? It wouldn't make sense to them, especially if they are doing it because they don't want to sell the club. | |
| |
| American owners on 19:00 - Sep 28 with 1619 views | Edmundo |
| American owners on 18:57 - Sep 28 by max936 |
If some of the directors wish to sell couldn't the others including the trust buy them out? |
Yes, part of the trust plan to secure more ownership when available, which is good.
 |  |
| Swansea City-Officially the best football team in Wales-FACT |
| |
| American owners on 19:01 - Sep 28 with 1615 views | AngelRangelQS |
It's easy to say that the directors are out to make a quick buck etc and whilst this may be true, I don't think they can really be blamed for doing so - we'd all do the same.
On another level, as Swans fans, the right sale to the right people, with certain conditions and with the trust retaining at least their current share holding, might be in the best interests of the club. There's a world of difference between some madcap owner and sensible investment [Post edited 28 Sep 2014 19:06]
|  | | |
| American owners on 19:25 - Sep 28 with 1568 views | westx |
| American owners on 18:57 - Sep 28 by max936 |
If some of the directors wish to sell couldn't the others including the trust buy them out? |
Depends on the face value of those shares
It's Mel Nurse I feel sorry for in all of this given he sold his 5% for £400k - a stake which is now worth £5m if some people are to be believed | |
| |
| American owners on 19:48 - Sep 28 with 1535 views | jackonicko |
I don't feel sorry for Mel. For the reasons I outlined before, he got a very good price (actually 450k as they added 50k in lieu of the subsequent divi) for his 5% holding.
There is only one possible scenario in which he could get £5m - which for the reasons I outlined has quite a small probability of occurring (and also presuming the £100m club valuation for the equity). He went for one bird in the hand rather than two in the bush - which on pure game theory is quite a smart decision.
The only regret I have is that Mel has proved on many occasions to be one shareholder who absolutely, genuinely, 100% has the best interests of the club at heart. Even to his own huge, personal and financial risk. I certainly would prefer that he still had a dog in this particular fight should such a bid emerge. |  | | |
| American owners on 19:48 - Sep 28 with 1535 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 19:00 - Sep 28 by Edmundo |
Yes, part of the trust plan to secure more ownership when available, which is good.
|
The Trust simply cannot afford to buy at the prices existing shareholders would want to buy. I don't envisage another Mel Nurse situation anytime soon. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:53 - Sep 28 with 1512 views | Spratty |
Damn Virgin link shocking this weekend.....
"Of course, the trust has 600k in the bank, so could potentially buy that 5% holding. But that would put the trust over 25%, which changes the dynamics of the current ownership structure massively. I doubt the other shareholders would let that happen and they could block it via the shareholder agreement."
Hypothetically if a tame third party bought these shares then later transferred them to the Trust by some device - might this extended route (or variations on that theme) give an out to avoid the others blocking the trust "acquiring these shares - and thus achieving the 25% for the Trust?
[Post edited 28 Sep 2014 19:57]
|  | | |
| American owners on 19:55 - Sep 28 with 1499 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 19:48 - Sep 28 by jackonicko |
I don't feel sorry for Mel. For the reasons I outlined before, he got a very good price (actually 450k as they added 50k in lieu of the subsequent divi) for his 5% holding.
There is only one possible scenario in which he could get £5m - which for the reasons I outlined has quite a small probability of occurring (and also presuming the £100m club valuation for the equity). He went for one bird in the hand rather than two in the bush - which on pure game theory is quite a smart decision.
The only regret I have is that Mel has proved on many occasions to be one shareholder who absolutely, genuinely, 100% has the best interests of the club at heart. Even to his own huge, personal and financial risk. I certainly would prefer that he still had a dog in this particular fight should such a bid emerge. |
Aye, as would I.
We can all speculate on the motives of the existing shareholders but there are at least a couple who the vast majority agree seem to have the long-term interests of the club at heart. That provides some comfort and certainly a path for discussion should a situation ever arise. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 20:02 - Sep 28 with 1482 views | jackonicko |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:53 - Sep 28 by Spratty |
Damn Virgin link shocking this weekend.....
"Of course, the trust has 600k in the bank, so could potentially buy that 5% holding. But that would put the trust over 25%, which changes the dynamics of the current ownership structure massively. I doubt the other shareholders would let that happen and they could block it via the shareholder agreement."
Hypothetically if a tame third party bought these shares then later transferred them to the Trust by some device - might this extended route (or variations on that theme) give an out to avoid the others blocking the trust "acquiring these shares - and thus achieving the 25% for the Trust?
[Post edited 28 Sep 2014 19:57]
|
No. The same 'controls' would still exist when it comes to transferring the shares on the register.
The only way it could 'sort of' happen is if the third party agreed bi-laterally with the trust to act consistently with them on any decisions. But that's not enforceable. | | | |
| American owners on 20:06 - Sep 28 with 1462 views | jackonicko |
| American owners on 19:55 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge |
Aye, as would I.
We can all speculate on the motives of the existing shareholders but there are at least a couple who the vast majority agree seem to have the long-term interests of the club at heart. That provides some comfort and certainly a path for discussion should a situation ever arise. |
Totally agree. Reading back, I was a bit slack in my language - I didn't mean to imply that Mel was the (only) one shareholder to always act in the best interests of the club. He was just a shareholder who has such an amazing history with the club that you would want him on the inside.
As you say, he is definitely not the only one either. | | | |
| American owners on 20:06 - Sep 28 with 1462 views | Spratty |
| American owners on 19:01 - Sep 28 by AngelRangelQS |
It's easy to say that the directors are out to make a quick buck etc and whilst this may be true, I don't think they can really be blamed for doing so - we'd all do the same.
On another level, as Swans fans, the right sale to the right people, with certain conditions and with the trust retaining at least their current share holding, might be in the best interests of the club. There's a world of difference between some madcap owner and sensible investment [Post edited 28 Sep 2014 19:06]
|
I don't agree we would all do the same it depends on circumstances.
But I have already said you can understand they would want to
Think there would be serious bad feeling (and we have previously seen how that can go) if they just use the club as a cash cow. As has been said above if they want to take millions out of the success of the club then the minimum expected would be a prudent sale that afforded protections. These protections would obviously limit the value or even the ability to sell. This may test the statement that we are fans first of all. I hope that test is passed if any of this comes to fruition. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 20:09 - Sep 28 with 1448 views | Spratty |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 20:02 - Sep 28 by jackonicko |
No. The same 'controls' would still exist when it comes to transferring the shares on the register.
The only way it could 'sort of' happen is if the third party agreed bi-laterally with the trust to act consistently with them on any decisions. But that's not enforceable. |
Thanks - that would be dodgy
What if the acquiring company was later to merge with the Trust somehow? | | | |
| American owners on 20:11 - Sep 28 with 1441 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 20:06 - Sep 28 by jackonicko |
Totally agree. Reading back, I was a bit slack in my language - I didn't mean to imply that Mel was the (only) one shareholder to always act in the best interests of the club. He was just a shareholder who has such an amazing history with the club that you would want him on the inside.
As you say, he is definitely not the only one either. |
I know what you meant, and aye agree. He's one I couldn't possibly begrudge winning the lottery, so long as the club was looked after.
Interesting stuff, and it's certainly a discussion that needs to happen should a situation ever arise for the future where this becomes a reality. | |
| |
| American owners on 20:14 - Sep 28 with 1426 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 20:06 - Sep 28 by Spratty |
I don't agree we would all do the same it depends on circumstances.
But I have already said you can understand they would want to
Think there would be serious bad feeling (and we have previously seen how that can go) if they just use the club as a cash cow. As has been said above if they want to take millions out of the success of the club then the minimum expected would be a prudent sale that afforded protections. These protections would obviously limit the value or even the ability to sell. This may test the statement that we are fans first of all. I hope that test is passed if any of this comes to fruition. |
Here's a question. Someone offers you £5m for your stake in a business. You're comfortably enough off but this is life changing territory. What do you do?
There's two sides for me. I totally understand the human aspect of this, and who wouldn't be tempted by that sort of money? However the club has to be looked after, and as a fan my only focus would be what's best for the club and those who would profit out of it would be a distant secondary consideration. | |
| |
| American owners on 20:17 - Sep 28 with 1411 views | londonlisa2001 |
| American owners on 20:11 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge |
I know what you meant, and aye agree. He's one I couldn't possibly begrudge winning the lottery, so long as the club was looked after.
Interesting stuff, and it's certainly a discussion that needs to happen should a situation ever arise for the future where this becomes a reality. |
should we read anything into the fact that there has been a direct statement on this thread (from warwick) that the Trust know all about it and no denial from the Trust?
I'm not saying that means anything at all - possibly Phil didn't see it, or feels that he shouldn't comment on wild speculation or indeed can't comment for whatever reason. | | | |
| American owners on 20:21 - Sep 28 with 1392 views | londonlisa2001 |
| American owners on 20:14 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge |
Here's a question. Someone offers you £5m for your stake in a business. You're comfortably enough off but this is life changing territory. What do you do?
There's two sides for me. I totally understand the human aspect of this, and who wouldn't be tempted by that sort of money? However the club has to be looked after, and as a fan my only focus would be what's best for the club and those who would profit out of it would be a distant secondary consideration. |
No one whether on here on anywhere else surely loves the club more than they love their family and a sale would potentially set up people's families for life. It doesn't make people less of a 'fan' but just human. | | | |
| American owners on 20:21 - Sep 28 with 1389 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 20:17 - Sep 28 by londonlisa2001 |
should we read anything into the fact that there has been a direct statement on this thread (from warwick) that the Trust know all about it and no denial from the Trust?
I'm not saying that means anything at all - possibly Phil didn't see it, or feels that he shouldn't comment on wild speculation or indeed can't comment for whatever reason. |
Warwick wasn't on the Trust board last time I checked  . Anyway, the Trust can't, and IMO shouldn't, comment on every rumour and could only comment if there was an actual bid on the table because, as Phil said elsewhere, the actions of the Trust would be dictated by its voting members not the Trust board.
In the absence of such comments, the only thing that could be inferred is that no bids for the club have been received. Which, in fairness, ties in with the OP I think. | |
| |
| American owners on 20:21 - Sep 28 with 1389 views | tomdickharry |
There is more chance of Gomis scoring 25 goals in the PL this season than American Owners taking over. | | | |
| American owners on 20:21 - Sep 28 with 1388 views | jackonicko |
| American owners on 20:17 - Sep 28 by londonlisa2001 |
should we read anything into the fact that there has been a direct statement on this thread (from warwick) that the Trust know all about it and no denial from the Trust?
I'm not saying that means anything at all - possibly Phil didn't see it, or feels that he shouldn't comment on wild speculation or indeed can't comment for whatever reason. |
No. Phil rarely/never comments on this stuff and nor should he, IMHO.
This is (for me at least!) an interesting theoretical discussion, particularly due to the different moving parts. As i started my first post, it is almost a perfect case study for game theory.
But it's best it stays theoretical. | | | |
| American owners on 20:23 - Sep 28 with 1375 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 20:21 - Sep 28 by londonlisa2001 |
No one whether on here on anywhere else surely loves the club more than they love their family and a sale would potentially set up people's families for life. It doesn't make people less of a 'fan' but just human. |
Human indeed. Personally I couldn't live with myself if I owned a part of the club and sold it just for the money even if it saw me and mine set for life, but that's me. Doesn't make me a bigger or better fan of course, just someone who likes to be able to sleep at night. | |
| |
| American owners on 20:26 - Sep 28 with 1353 views | londonlisa2001 |
| American owners on 20:21 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge |
Warwick wasn't on the Trust board last time I checked . Anyway, the Trust can't, and IMO shouldn't, comment on every rumour and could only comment if there was an actual bid on the table because, as Phil said elsewhere, the actions of the Trust would be dictated by its voting members not the Trust board.
In the absence of such comments, the only thing that could be inferred is that no bids for the club have been received. Which, in fairness, ties in with the OP I think. |
no I don't disagree and I think there should be no comment, I was just asking if we should read anything into it.
But we all know that there is a difference between no formal offer and there being discussions, particularly where the company involved is private and therefore not tied to announcing information in the way a public company is.
I still maintain that this is just the latest in a line of rumours, although this one has lingered longer than usual... | | | |
| American owners on 20:29 - Sep 28 with 1342 views | londonlisa2001 |
| American owners on 20:23 - Sep 28 by Uxbridge |
Human indeed. Personally I couldn't live with myself if I owned a part of the club and sold it just for the money even if it saw me and mine set for life, but that's me. Doesn't make me a bigger or better fan of course, just someone who likes to be able to sleep at night. |
I know what you mean, but I think most people would put their families first when it came down to it (I'm assuming here that they wouldn't deliberately put the club in jeopardy and would only sell to someone that they believed to have the club's best interests at heart, not that they're going to sell to some absolute crook).
I think it would be understandable and that they would end up justifying a sale - maybe only to themselves. | | | |
| American owners on 20:35 - Sep 28 with 1316 views | Uxbridge |
| American owners on 20:26 - Sep 28 by londonlisa2001 |
no I don't disagree and I think there should be no comment, I was just asking if we should read anything into it.
But we all know that there is a difference between no formal offer and there being discussions, particularly where the company involved is private and therefore not tied to announcing information in the way a public company is.
I still maintain that this is just the latest in a line of rumours, although this one has lingered longer than usual... |
People will always read something into anything. However, I don't think you can in this case. And anyway, if the Trust knew about some initial discussions, they probably couldn't comment for confidentiality reasons anyway.
And no doubt the very fact I'm commenting on that will be taken as proof that something is actually happening. Ho hum.
But anyway, silence means nothing. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
