| fao Phil Sumbler 16:45 - Oct 23 with 33023 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 14:20 - Oct 25 with 1429 views | MoscowJack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:56 - Oct 25 by 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 |
Maybe this is why the anti-Trust PR has already. If some can make the Trust out to be "the baddies" then there's more sympathy for the sellers. |  |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:24 - Oct 25 with 1421 views | Dr_Winston |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:56 - Oct 25 by 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 |
Mike Lewis still lives quite openly in Gorseinon. I doubt they need to worry that much. |  |
| 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 14:30 - Oct 25 with 1402 views | Rancid |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:09 - Oct 25 by Dr_Winston |
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. |
Not sure the location would matter too much to them.The Yanks own Sunderland, Villa, United and Liverpool and Croydon isn't exactly affluent but neither is Swansea.We're surely more marketable and attractive than Crystal Palace at this moment in time though? I know which club I'd be more interested in.
Anyway we're reading between the lines here although at the same time might not be too far from the truth. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:33 - Oct 25 with 1389 views | londonlisa2001 |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:20 - Oct 25 by MoscowJack |
Maybe this is why the anti-Trust PR has already. If some can make the Trust out to be "the baddies" then there's more sympathy for the sellers. |
the sad part Nick, is that if we were bought by an 'American billionaire' most of our supporters these days would be far to busy creaming themselves at the thought of paying millions for a player we can't afford to be in the slightest bit concerned about the current owners' position.
I said earlier that money corrupts - the Premier League also corrupts the thinking of many many fans.
The people involved many years ago would be worried, the vast ranks of supporters would be besides themselves and more concerned about taunting Cardiff with our new found wealth and the thought of 'getting to the Champions League' etc.
We're not the same club anymore in an awful lot of ways. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:41 - Oct 25 with 1363 views | MoscowJack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:33 - Oct 25 by londonlisa2001 |
the sad part Nick, is that if we were bought by an 'American billionaire' most of our supporters these days would be far to busy creaming themselves at the thought of paying millions for a player we can't afford to be in the slightest bit concerned about the current owners' position.
I said earlier that money corrupts - the Premier League also corrupts the thinking of many many fans.
The people involved many years ago would be worried, the vast ranks of supporters would be besides themselves and more concerned about taunting Cardiff with our new found wealth and the thought of 'getting to the Champions League' etc.
We're not the same club anymore in an awful lot of ways. |
That's so so so true. Your previous message was a real help too....thanks.
It will be important to see whether the new OWNERS will be backed by their own money or borrowed. Will they have their own money to buy into the Swans and further invest, or will they go down Tan's route of lending the club money at profit?
I think we all need to agree that (1) there should be no debt attached to any deal and (2) an agreement in place to protect the Trust. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:41 - Oct 25 with 1363 views | perchrockjack |
Its also the case,lisa that we are not the basket case club we used to be.
That in itself is something to behold.
Its ok to be be careful but we have to move with the times and where we are is where we are.at the top of the pile.
Humble No more, poor no more, no longer in the soiled hands of a corrupt Swansea council that we used to be. Praise he Lord for that | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:44 - Oct 25 with 1358 views | Rancid |
The American owned clubs in the Premier League seem to be well run and it's owners sensible and have the clubs fans in it's interests.It's when you get taken over by chicken farmers and lunatic Malaysians it's time to worry.
And if there's any clubs board who you'd trust to make the right decision regarding a takeover then it would be ours.
I'd still prefer things to stay as they are though,especially if we can expand the stadium with our own money and not try to fix what's not broken.
I'm also one of the many fans who are just happy to be in the Premier League whether it be finishing 17th every season but we're better than that which has been proven and without external investment.
Things are coming to a head at Swansea City and it's whether we stick or twist. [Post edited 25 Oct 2014 14:45]
| | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:47 - Oct 25 with 1350 views | Uxbridge |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 13:45 - Oct 25 by londonlisa2001 |
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). |
As you say, all depends on the articles and shareholders agreement, beyond the need for a ordinary resolution.
What you would hope is that any party would realise that keeping the Trust onside would be critical from a PR perspective. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:49 - Oct 25 with 1338 views | londonlisa2001 |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:41 - Oct 25 by MoscowJack |
That's so so so true. Your previous message was a real help too....thanks.
It will be important to see whether the new OWNERS will be backed by their own money or borrowed. Will they have their own money to buy into the Swans and further invest, or will they go down Tan's route of lending the club money at profit?
I think we all need to agree that (1) there should be no debt attached to any deal and (2) an agreement in place to protect the Trust. |
well I'm not sure we'll be able to insist on anything - as I said, it may depend on what is in place at the moment which only the Trust Board will be aware of.
The only thing I would say is that I really can see no point in anyone investing in a club in the Premier League and not making investment in the team sufficient to stop it getting relegated (as far as possible). That would just lose them millions and millions which no one would want to do.
In fact, I can't see much point in investing (and therefore paying the value of a mid ranking PL team) without thinking they can significantly improve us (and make their investment more valuable). It wouldn't make sense. I fail to see how any investment though other than literally hundreds of millions can ever take a PL team up to a level of generating funds substantially in excess of where they are at the moment. The TV money dwarfs everything else and is pretty evenly shared. Commercial income could be improved, but as shown in that table that, i think DYSS posted, it doesn't make that much difference unless you really are a much much bigger club, and it's hard to see how you get that without stupid money. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:50 - Oct 25 with 1336 views | jackonicko |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:44 - Oct 25 by Rancid |
The American owned clubs in the Premier League seem to be well run and it's owners sensible and have the clubs fans in it's interests.It's when you get taken over by chicken farmers and lunatic Malaysians it's time to worry.
And if there's any clubs board who you'd trust to make the right decision regarding a takeover then it would be ours.
I'd still prefer things to stay as they are though,especially if we can expand the stadium with our own money and not try to fix what's not broken.
I'm also one of the many fans who are just happy to be in the Premier League whether it be finishing 17th every season but we're better than that which has been proven and without external investment.
Things are coming to a head at Swansea City and it's whether we stick or twist. [Post edited 25 Oct 2014 14:45]
|
Whether yoou stick or twist usually depends on whether you hold an ace. |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:51 - Oct 25 with 1334 views | londonlisa2001 |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:41 - Oct 25 by perchrockjack |
Its also the case,lisa that we are not the basket case club we used to be.
That in itself is something to behold.
Its ok to be be careful but we have to move with the times and where we are is where we are.at the top of the pile.
Humble No more, poor no more, no longer in the soiled hands of a corrupt Swansea council that we used to be. Praise he Lord for that |
yes - I don't disagree with that.
It is just a shame in some ways that we can't see how far we could go with the organic growth model - Huw has said often enough though that he doesn't think we can go further and there lies the issue. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:52 - Oct 25 with 1329 views | londonlisa2001 |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:50 - Oct 25 by jackonicko |
Whether yoou stick or twist usually depends on whether you hold an ace. |
or how risk averse you are ! | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:54 - Oct 25 with 1321 views | londonlisa2001 |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:47 - Oct 25 by Uxbridge |
As you say, all depends on the articles and shareholders agreement, beyond the need for a ordinary resolution.
What you would hope is that any party would realise that keeping the Trust onside would be critical from a PR perspective. |
I agree with you. As I said though, I'm not sure most of our fans would give a damn. | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:55 - Oct 25 with 1320 views | jackonicko |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:52 - Oct 25 by londonlisa2001 |
or how risk averse you are ! |
Ha!
You can't beat the house though. You can only play the odds.... | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:02 - Oct 25 with 1299 views | londonlisa2001 |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:55 - Oct 25 by jackonicko |
Ha!
You can't beat the house though. You can only play the odds.... |
yes in general but as a one off any individual can beat the house of course.
I suspect the people at the top though have come to the conclusion that they think they should stop thinking they can continue to beat the house and start playing the odds instead.
in some ways, selling the club is less risky than not (certainly for the people that own it). | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:27 - Oct 25 with 1237 views | MoscowJack |
What if they're looking to by a small % of the club now and more later when the PL money goes even higher? The new TV deal could well be worth another 30% more than the current deal, which should (in theory) make our valuation around 30% higher.
If someone comes in now with an option to extend their ownership in the future, they could make a killing if the above happens. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:30 - Oct 25 with 1232 views | Rancid |
We're all still haunted by what nearly happened to us 10 and more years ago and it's affecting our thinking on all of this.That's not a bad thing at all, infact it's the best possible safety net we could have.However, unbelievable things have happened to the club since and we're now a worldwide brand and a sought after business.It's a unprecedented situation we're in and all we can do is hope that if we do decide to sell up or take on outside investment then it'll all work out for the club and push us on and upwards, otherwise what would be the point in it apart from certain people becoming wealthier.
I see new fans who weren't around in the dark days all for us to be taken over and inflated and the older wiser heads who were about back then more sceptical about it all and obviously so.
Someone once wrote ''Ambition is critical'', but how ambitious and where do we draw the line? | | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:30 - Oct 25 with 1232 views | Starsky |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:02 - Oct 25 by londonlisa2001 |
yes in general but as a one off any individual can beat the house of course.
I suspect the people at the top though have come to the conclusion that they think they should stop thinking they can continue to beat the house and start playing the odds instead.
in some ways, selling the club is less risky than not (certainly for the people that own it). |
How much more investment could be spent on the squad before the FFP kicks in anyway?
If we suddenly had new investors, they'd have to expand the stadium and increase commercial revenue to make a big difference. |  |
| It's just the internet, init. |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:31 - Oct 25 with 1230 views | Spratty |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:51 - Oct 25 by londonlisa2001 |
yes - I don't disagree with that.
It is just a shame in some ways that we can't see how far we could go with the organic growth model - Huw has said often enough though that he doesn't think we can go further and there lies the issue. |
Not an unrealistic position though - we know we were living the dream over these years in so many ways.
Slugging it out with the big boys in the mega millions wars could never hold the same appeal for me. Ask the passionate old ManC fans - a bit of a hollow wonderland for some.
Mind you never say never Spratty |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:32 - Oct 25 with 1221 views | Coot |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 14:47 - Oct 25 by Uxbridge |
As you say, all depends on the articles and shareholders agreement, beyond the need for a ordinary resolution.
What you would hope is that any party would realise that keeping the Trust onside would be critical from a PR perspective. |
Forgive me for what is probably a most stupid question. Nobody knows what this shareholders agreement says. But the trust being a shareholder should know, so doesn't that mean the trust members should know too? |  | | |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 16:00 - Oct 25 with 1177 views | Uxbridge |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:32 - Oct 25 by Coot |
Forgive me for what is probably a most stupid question. Nobody knows what this shareholders agreement says. But the trust being a shareholder should know, so doesn't that mean the trust members should know too? |
The Trust would know, yes. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 16:25 - Oct 25 with 1127 views | morningstar |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 15:30 - Oct 25 by Starsky |
How much more investment could be spent on the squad before the FFP kicks in anyway?
If we suddenly had new investors, they'd have to expand the stadium and increase commercial revenue to make a big difference. |
And this Starsky is where the answer lies if there is any truth in all of this, and that is any sale is linked to stadium expansion. Somewhere along the lines of the Yanks get us cheap with an agreement that they fund full expansion. Everyone is a winner. Sharholders, new owners and fans alike! If i'm on the right lines, then fingers crossed as far as I'm concerned! |  |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 19:44 - Oct 25 with 1063 views | MoscowJack |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 16:25 - Oct 25 by morningstar |
And this Starsky is where the answer lies if there is any truth in all of this, and that is any sale is linked to stadium expansion. Somewhere along the lines of the Yanks get us cheap with an agreement that they fund full expansion. Everyone is a winner. Sharholders, new owners and fans alike! If i'm on the right lines, then fingers crossed as far as I'm concerned! |
Get us cheap?
Well, I would be very happy if they got us "cheap" but used the same money to invest in the stadium, marketing and maybe players.....but that's not going to happen.
The last thing we need is someone borrowing money to buy us, cover us in debt (that we wouldn't be able to service if we got relegated) and managed to get the Trust out (or reduced ownership). | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 20:20 - Oct 25 with 1033 views | morningstar |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 19:44 - Oct 25 by MoscowJack |
Get us cheap?
Well, I would be very happy if they got us "cheap" but used the same money to invest in the stadium, marketing and maybe players.....but that's not going to happen.
The last thing we need is someone borrowing money to buy us, cover us in debt (that we wouldn't be able to service if we got relegated) and managed to get the Trust out (or reduced ownership). |
The whole scenario is a minefield Nick from whatever way you look at it. But I honestly do not think that the board/shareholders would sell for the total club worth, pocket the money and say "f*** off kerrching thank you very much"! As I said IF there is any truth in this I would like to think that the more likely plan would be too sell for far less than the club is worth and the remainder be reinvested by the new owners. On what basis do you say thats not going to happen? Or do you really believe that lifelong fans of this club would sell their souls? Because I am pretty certain in my mind that they wouldn't. | |
| |
| fao Phil Sumbler on 20:24 - Oct 25 with 1023 views | MoscowJack |
That's a good question. I don't think any of the Board would want to screw the Club at all. Definitely not.
But....I'll go back to my earlier question - if someone offered you £5m to never watch the Swans and stop supporting them over night, would you accept? The financial stability that offers all the families involved is a very hard thing to turn down. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
