| fao Phil Sumbler 16:45 - Oct 23 with 33106 views | Rancid |
Is it true that the trust is preventing us from being taken over by an American consortium for 95 million? And the rest of the board want it to go through? I'm not expecting a straight answer btw but I've heard from a very good source at the club. |  | | |  |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 11:32 - Oct 25 with 1459 views | Parlay |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 16:04 - Oct 24 by oh_tommy_tommy |
A thread arguing about being taken over by a billionaire .
Things we could only dream of a few years ago.
Stupendous stuff. |
Those billions being the Americans money not ours. All it means is we go from living within our means to spending what we can't afford - against any of our wishes. Billionaire owners are essentially a humongous credit cards taken out in the club's name while the "owner" does as he pleases with it... then he asks for it back. |  |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 11:43 - Oct 25 with 1432 views | the_oracle |
Seems to be a lot of underlying jealously in this thread particularly in regard to one certain board member. I can say I knew Leigh well in the 80'and 90's, going to most games together , home and occasionally away. A genuinely nice guy.
The value of any shares held depends on us staying in the Premier league and that position is under threat each year. If I was Leigh or any other share holder I would seriously consider selling before we go down ( and personally the longer we have Monk in charge the sooner that will be, buts that's a different thread). Why hold on to shares that may be worth thousands this time next year, compared to millions at the moment? I'd sell, pay for a box for the 30 years and enjoy myself at the games without the sniping and hassle. |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 11:54 - Oct 25 with 1405 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 10:48 - Oct 25 by MoscowJack |
Nobody seems to like this question, but I'll ask it on here anyway.......
If someone offered you £5m in cash to stop supporting the Swans today and forever, would you take it? |
If someone offered you £5m in cash and you could no longer access the director's lounges of some of the most famous football clubs in the world but you could still support the Swans, would you take it? |  |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 11:59 - Oct 25 with 1388 views | MoscowJack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 11:54 - Oct 25 by Joe_bradshaw |
If someone offered you £5m in cash and you could no longer access the director's lounges of some of the most famous football clubs in the world but you could still support the Swans, would you take it? |
Was that directed just at me or everyone?
Considering I've never been in the "Director's lounges of some of the most famous football clubs in the world", this is a bit of a no-brainer.
It's like asking, "would you take £5m to keep supporting the Swans?" | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:01 - Oct 25 with 1385 views | Dr_Winston |
If a number of them try to sell up whilst donating enough shares to the ST to give it a 25% holding then things might be different. |  |
| 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. |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:08 - Oct 25 with 1371 views | MoscowJack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:01 - Oct 25 by Dr_Winston |
If a number of them try to sell up whilst donating enough shares to the ST to give it a 25% holding then things might be different. |
I think that's one of good scenarios - if they're adamant about cashing in (or some of them are) then ensuring that the Trust is protects is a must.
Question for Ux, Lisa and Jacko - if the Trust had (somehow) 25%, would the owner/s of the other 75% be able to dilute the Trust's shares easily? I'm sure that this was answered on the other thread a month ago, but I can't remember the reply. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:10 - Oct 25 with 1363 views | _ |
I think we need to stop looking at scenarios, no matter how much I agree with what's been said and am as perplexed by the dilemma as everyone else and start looking after us and the club. |  |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:12 - Oct 25 with 1359 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 11:59 - Oct 25 by MoscowJack |
Was that directed just at me or everyone?
Considering I've never been in the "Director's lounges of some of the most famous football clubs in the world", this is a bit of a no-brainer.
It's like asking, "would you take £5m to keep supporting the Swans?" |
Sorry Moscow, I thought you were suggesting that the shareholders were facing the question that you posed although I couldn't understand why they had to stop supporting the Swans.
Clearly I misunderstood your post.
I would obviously take the money not to attend games. They can't stop me following the Swans without physical support though. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:13 - Oct 25 with 1351 views | Dr_Winston |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:08 - Oct 25 by MoscowJack |
I think that's one of good scenarios - if they're adamant about cashing in (or some of them are) then ensuring that the Trust is protects is a must.
Question for Ux, Lisa and Jacko - if the Trust had (somehow) 25%, would the owner/s of the other 75% be able to dilute the Trust's shares easily? I'm sure that this was answered on the other thread a month ago, but I can't remember the reply. |
I'm sure there's some legal protection that comes with 25% that stops that kind of thing from happening. | |
| 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. |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:17 - Oct 25 with 1332 views | _ |
I think we need to stop looking at scenarios, no matter how much I agree with what's been said and am as perplexed by the dilemma as everyone else and start looking after us and the club.
Perhaps we need to be as selfish as some of the Directors could be thinking of being and regardless of "would we do this or that" in their position, we're not in that position. We're in ours and that is making sure the club will remain in good hands, and I'm sorry, regardless of whether they make £1m or £10m. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:26 - Oct 25 with 1291 views | MoscowJack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:17 - Oct 25 by _ |
I think we need to stop looking at scenarios, no matter how much I agree with what's been said and am as perplexed by the dilemma as everyone else and start looking after us and the club.
Perhaps we need to be as selfish as some of the Directors could be thinking of being and regardless of "would we do this or that" in their position, we're not in that position. We're in ours and that is making sure the club will remain in good hands, and I'm sorry, regardless of whether they make £1m or £10m. |
Totally and absolutely agree that our focus has to be 100% on what's best for the Swans and that's basically by ensuring the safety of the Trust.
This is the biggest test for the Trust for over 10 years and also a big test of Huw C's relationship with the SCFC Board.
It's vital that EVERYONE gets 100% behind the Trust now and that the Trust communicate really well with the fans as this drags on. There's nothing for them to communicate YET, but I'm sure that there soon will be . | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:29 - Oct 25 with 1284 views | jackonicko |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:08 - Oct 25 by MoscowJack |
I think that's one of good scenarios - if they're adamant about cashing in (or some of them are) then ensuring that the Trust is protects is a must.
Question for Ux, Lisa and Jacko - if the Trust had (somehow) 25%, would the owner/s of the other 75% be able to dilute the Trust's shares easily? I'm sure that this was answered on the other thread a month ago, but I can't remember the reply. |
25% gives some additional protection. But not a huge amount compared to what might be in a shareholders agreement. Or a sale and purchase agreement.
The bigger challenge for the trust is that 21% is much less effective against one shareholder of 79% versus 79% split amongst a bunch of smaller share holdings.
And well done to Leigh for coming to London. Glad to hear that he is doing so - at times like this it's important that the clubs most senior representatives are engaging with the supporters. |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:33 - Oct 25 with 1276 views | Rancid |
Does Phil still think my source isn't 'a very good one'?
Could you answer please Phil? | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:42 - Oct 25 with 1256 views | MoscowJack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:33 - Oct 25 by Rancid |
Does Phil still think my source isn't 'a very good one'?
Could you answer please Phil? |
Does it really matter? | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:57 - Oct 25 with 1239 views | Rancid |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:42 - Oct 25 by MoscowJack |
Does it really matter? |
Probably not, but he did say after my OP that my source wasn't a very good one, but as the threads progressed he's got quite involved and gone into some detail.Now if he thought it was untrue and bollox then surely he'd have left it alone, which is why I asked the question.
Also, things are moving pretty quickly from what I'm told so maybe he's more informed now than what he was then.
No harm in asking. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:18 - Oct 25 with 1204 views | jackonicko |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:57 - Oct 25 by Rancid |
Probably not, but he did say after my OP that my source wasn't a very good one, but as the threads progressed he's got quite involved and gone into some detail.Now if he thought it was untrue and bollox then surely he'd have left it alone, which is why I asked the question.
Also, things are moving pretty quickly from what I'm told so maybe he's more informed now than what he was then.
No harm in asking. |
Did Brian tell you who the money is? | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:21 - Oct 25 with 1193 views | Rancid |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:18 - Oct 25 by jackonicko |
Did Brian tell you who the money is? |
Sadly, I'm merely a fan like you and everyone else but with a big nose and inquisitive nature.And who's mentioned Brian?...certainly not me.  | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:35 - Oct 25 with 1164 views | Coot |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:25 - Oct 25 by Brynmill_Jack |
If someone takes over with the intention of making money on his investment then I don't really see any upside. If we got relegated after spending too much money for example (and the club did own the ground by then) the new owners could decide to cut and run. That is very much a worst case scenario I know but as we've seen with football anything could happen. We could be renamed the Swansea Swans like the Hull owner wanted to do to them or a change in kit colour could be in the offing! |
The only upside (if you can call it that) would be that the trust would have millions of £ to take the club back.
Can't see a potential new owner buying if they were to only get 75% instead of 79% though. |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:45 - Oct 25 with 1145 views | londonlisa2001 |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 12:29 - Oct 25 by jackonicko |
25% gives some additional protection. But not a huge amount compared to what might be in a shareholders agreement. Or a sale and purchase agreement.
The bigger challenge for the trust is that 21% is much less effective against one shareholder of 79% versus 79% split amongst a bunch of smaller share holdings.
And well done to Leigh for coming to London. Glad to hear that he is doing so - at times like this it's important that the clubs most senior representatives are engaging with the supporters. |
I'd add to this re Nick's question that protections which are achieved at 25% for example, tend to be those that stop the majority shareholder diluting down the minority (i.e. the Trust in this case) by issuing additional shares without allowing the minority to buy their 'fair share' (to maintain their % shareholding).
The particular problem here is that a majority shareholder can quite rightly allow the Trust to reinvest in equal proportions if shares are issued, but the Trust doesn't have the financial ability to do so.
Company Law doesn't really give much protection for a situation where one shareholder just wants to block any future investment simply because it can't afford to maintain its own %. It's a bit like playing poker with someone that simply has more money - they will normally win just by upping the stakes all the time.
The hope is that there are additional protections for the Trust in an existing shareholders agreement which carries on past any sale (a lot of SAs, specify for example, that shares can only be sold to parties that sign up to the Shareholders Agreement, thus ensuring it survives into perpetuity unless all parties agree to set aside).
If this is the case, then there may (only may - they are all different) be certain actions that the company (club in this case) can take only with the agreement of all shareholders (a veto clause if you like). Again, this is quite common.
I suspect (obviously don't know at all) that such an agreement may exist and may contain some of these types of clauses. Why do I say that? Well. because otherwise a PR type offensive (which seems from the outside to have started) is a waste of time. The club could just be sold and the Trust couldn't block anything really. The fact that anyone wants to start talking about the Trust being difficult or an obstacle in any way, suggests (and only suggests) that the Trust has more protection than would be the case from basic company law.
This is obviously all speculation about an unknown situation. Does that make it worth discussing? Well yes in my view since we are seemingly someway past idle gossip here - there's too much strength to the rumours unless it's a phenomenal wind up (in which case, Hue would have been unlikely to give it the credibility that he did a month ago). | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:56 - Oct 25 with 1119 views | fbreath |
The majority of shareholders are locals. Anything they do that is not in the best interests of the club will live with them and their families for generations. Plus the grief they would get when out and about would also be something they would need to think about.
The ones who are not local have in theory nothing to lose apart from reputation |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:58 - Oct 25 with 1114 views | NOTRAC |
I have no sympathy with any shareholder contemplating selling their shares.
With the dividends that they have had they have already had their money back, and whilst w e are in the Premiership they will no doubt continue to have substantial dividends in the future.
Their original intention as highlighted in the recent film was to invest in Swansea City.
If they now sell then they are investing in themselves, and are as much traitors to this great club,and are no different to Petty and his crowd. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:02 - Oct 25 with 1099 views | Rancid |
''Palace are one of a number of prospective investment opportunities he is considering as he seeks a foothold in the Premier League''.
Interesting.We're far more an attractive commodity than Crystal Palace though, surely? | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:09 - Oct 25 with 1088 views | Dr_Winston |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:02 - Oct 25 by Rancid |
''Palace are one of a number of prospective investment opportunities he is considering as he seeks a foothold in the Premier League''.
Interesting.We're far more an attractive commodity than Crystal Palace though, surely? |
That's the bit that caught my eye.
Probably much of a muchness in terms of value. Palace are in London with all that entails. Not sure if they own Selhurst Park now. Ron Noades still owned it at one point. | |
| 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. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
