Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" 22:42 - Dec 14 with 24867 viewsChiswickjack4

Another home game, another banner in the East Stand with a message to the Americans.

I very much hope the club take their time on deciding on new/additional investment.

The value of our club is going to go through the roof once the new TV deal is announced in March...
0
(No subject) on 21:49 - Dec 16 with 1391 viewslondonlisa2001

(No subject) on 21:42 - Dec 16 by Shaky

OK, I clenched by buttocks and read a bit further.

If you want to evaluate a takeover offer you look at the tender price if it is a cash offer, whereas with a paper offer (an exchange of shares) you need to evaluate not only the exchange ratio but also the future prospect for the prospectively merged company.

Here we are talking about a cash offer. No need to worry your no doubt pretty little head about whether the poor Mercuns are going to be able to scrape a return on the valuation they are offering.

As we say in the City, that's their f*cking problem.


but it's not a takeover Shaky is it? Or are you now saying that shareholders who remain shareholders (since they are supposedly selling a minority) don't give a crap about what happens afterwards to the company they will still own the majority of?

Simplistic, nonsensical rubbish again I'm afraid.
0
(No subject) on 21:55 - Dec 16 with 1375 viewsShaky

(No subject) on 21:49 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001

but it's not a takeover Shaky is it? Or are you now saying that shareholders who remain shareholders (since they are supposedly selling a minority) don't give a crap about what happens afterwards to the company they will still own the majority of?

Simplistic, nonsensical rubbish again I'm afraid.


Remaining shareholders and the Americans would get exactly the same return on their ordinary shares. Their economic interests would be precisely aligned.

Do you understand?

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
(No subject) on 21:55 - Dec 16 with 1374 viewsParlay

(No subject) on 13:57 - Dec 16 by Shaky

You are simply wrong, Parlay.

There are broadly 2 types of financial investors that buy companies. Leveraged Buy-Out (LBO) firms and Private Equity Investors.

The LBO guys operate in the way you mention. They use lots of debt and make their companies sweat, then pay down the debt quickly and sell out at a huge profit. FWIW, George Hicks of Liverpool fame was one of the main players globally through his firm Hicks Muse Tate & Furst, a name much feared in boardrooms throughout the world along with others like KKR.

These were the barbarians at the gate, but their heyday was in the 80s and 90s and they are nowhere near as influential as they once were, because the business model no longer works, in part because companies are generally much leaner in their operations.

Instead their place has been taken by Private Equity investors, who might use that kind of strategy in narrow situations, but are generally much smarter and place a significantly greater emphasis on building value.

And if you are going to invest in a football club it doesn't take a genius to realise that financial success and on-field success are inexorably linked.

As for the question of your prophetic abilities your comments show a combination of what behavioural scientists would refer to as overconfidence and hindsight bias.

Tan's investment could either have gone badly or well, but you believe with hindsight that the outcome was obvious to you, resulting in overconfidence regarding your ability to predict future outcomes.

But in reality you predicted a coin toss. You might well do it again, but that doesn't make you a seer.


Nope, i aint.

You have absolutely no idea what their intentions are. To buy a football club and grow its value, you must plough money into it generally. This is risky, as its football. There is also a realistic ceiling that you could get the clubs value to.

A far safer way for an investor to get a return is by simply owning the club and investing very little indeed in it and letting the sky money crow the coffers to which you dan redirect to yourself by various legal ways.

Success and profits linked? Nonsense. The most successful clubs in England make the biggest losses. Swansea are the most profitable club in the premier league with circa £20m profit per year. We currently are probably at our ceiling of success so what is investing a further £50m for example going to do? We need hundreds of millions to become a regular champions league club and due to that the risk to reward ratio is ridiculously high.

Tan's gamble was never going to work, he had invested £112m by the time they made it to the premier league and only owned 60% of the club while paying wages 130% of turnover, it was not sustainable. His intentions to market the red for the asian stock market was not "a coin toss" but the reason.

Forum celebrity
Poll: Is £45 a match ticket too high?

0
(No subject) on 21:57 - Dec 16 with 1369 viewsShaky

(No subject) on 21:55 - Dec 16 by Parlay

Nope, i aint.

You have absolutely no idea what their intentions are. To buy a football club and grow its value, you must plough money into it generally. This is risky, as its football. There is also a realistic ceiling that you could get the clubs value to.

A far safer way for an investor to get a return is by simply owning the club and investing very little indeed in it and letting the sky money crow the coffers to which you dan redirect to yourself by various legal ways.

Success and profits linked? Nonsense. The most successful clubs in England make the biggest losses. Swansea are the most profitable club in the premier league with circa £20m profit per year. We currently are probably at our ceiling of success so what is investing a further £50m for example going to do? We need hundreds of millions to become a regular champions league club and due to that the risk to reward ratio is ridiculously high.

Tan's gamble was never going to work, he had invested £112m by the time they made it to the premier league and only owned 60% of the club while paying wages 130% of turnover, it was not sustainable. His intentions to market the red for the asian stock market was not "a coin toss" but the reason.


Maybe I'll come back to this tomorrow, maybe not.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
(No subject) on 21:57 - Dec 16 with 1366 viewsjackonicko

(No subject) on 21:42 - Dec 16 by Shaky

OK, I clenched by buttocks and read a bit further.

If you want to evaluate a takeover offer you look at the tender price if it is a cash offer, whereas with a paper offer (an exchange of shares) you need to evaluate not only the exchange ratio but also the future prospect for the prospectively merged company.

Here we are talking about a cash offer. No need to worry your no doubt pretty little head about whether the poor Mercuns are going to be able to scrape a return on the valuation they are offering.

As we say in the City, that's their f*cking problem.


But therein lies the difference, Shaky. For those of us who are swans fans, it's our f*cking problem too.
0
(No subject) on 22:07 - Dec 16 with 1333 viewsParlay

(No subject) on 21:57 - Dec 16 by Shaky

Maybe I'll come back to this tomorrow, maybe not.


Maybe ill reply then.

Maybe not.

Forum celebrity
Poll: Is £45 a match ticket too high?

0
(No subject) on 22:08 - Dec 16 with 1333 viewsShaky

(No subject) on 21:57 - Dec 16 by jackonicko

But therein lies the difference, Shaky. For those of us who are swans fans, it's our f*cking problem too.


The question is this: are the prospects for the club improved or deteriorated by having a sophisticated, well capitalised investor with significant expertise in US sports marketing, and the opportunity to institutionalise and significantly strengthen supporter participation in decision making.

The returns they make are irrelevant, with the exception of the case in which the investor is directly responsible for business failure. Because failure is always a possibility.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
(No subject) on 22:10 - Dec 16 with 1330 viewsShaky

(No subject) on 22:07 - Dec 16 by Parlay

Maybe ill reply then.

Maybe not.


Fact is you know bugger all about the world of finance, Parley, and there is only one word for your belief in your prophetic abilities; delusional.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
Login to get fewer ads

(No subject) on 22:11 - Dec 16 with 1321 viewsjackonicko

(No subject) on 22:08 - Dec 16 by Shaky

The question is this: are the prospects for the club improved or deteriorated by having a sophisticated, well capitalised investor with significant expertise in US sports marketing, and the opportunity to institutionalise and significantly strengthen supporter participation in decision making.

The returns they make are irrelevant, with the exception of the case in which the investor is directly responsible for business failure. Because failure is always a possibility.


So much noise. So little light.
0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:13 - Dec 16 with 1317 viewsdgt73

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 21:29 - Dec 15 by Parlay

By the time people like you accept there is now a time to make a banner... It will be too late.


So says the person who doesn't even watch the Swans live anymore ( actually ) inside the liberty and don't start you live in oz bullocks, you didn't even go to the qpr game when you were back in Swansea. Tut tut, hypocrite or what.

Poll: Have Swansea got some of the most negative w@nkers following them

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:24 - Dec 16 with 1295 views_

Lisa is as bad as Shaky, if not worse. Which is a shame as clearly they both have an enormous amount of knowledge in their areas of expertise.

For any mug still doubting Shaky's credentials then I would just suggest this stops and they begin to listen carefully to what he has to say. He moves in different circles to anyone on here and has his own inimitable style of posting - basically he tells it as it is "offend or please" which gets my respect every time.

He has given piotential scenarios and painted a takeover option which would not all be bad news for us. He's not doing this because he stands to gain anything from it and he certainly is not doing the PR work for the club, although i would be worried the club Directors may approach him for his services with the amount of shit he gets on here.

Where are we with all this at the moment?

I'm guessing only a select few people know and the very handy "NDA' is conveniently hamstringing our connected party in being able to perhaps offer the fan base at large more information.

The very likely scenario, however, is that talks are very advanced and the general mood is being assessed, propoganda formulating, PR exercises being implemented all in order to get the timing of the announcement just right.

The whole Trust set up is clearly an area that needs addressing. What happened with Leigh Dineen back in 2006 and his acquisition of shares and appointment onto the Board itself is nothing short of shocking and he got away lightly on that.

The fact any Trust Board member has personal business interests with the club, no matter how small is fundamentally wrong and strict new rules should be drafted up at the earliest convenience to prevent this from ever happening again and also no Trust Board member should run an Internet forum where their personal opinion could be influencing, no matter how big or small, a sizeable majority of fans.

Having said all that If certain individuals who stand to make a fortune are hell bent on seeng out a deal for themselves we need to cross this particular bridge and deal with all the likely possibilities that could then entail. On that note and I am no expert in high finance, not at all, but Shaky has mentioned on more than one occasion he believes there is a unique potential the Trust could cement its position in the ownership of the club and actually gain some real influence.

If I have this right maybe the current Trust Board members have decided against this strategy due to perhaps wanting to continue close and personable working links with the clubs directors?

He has suggested a few negotiation pointers to help the Trust demand the right protection. If this deal is almost on the table or at least advancing is it time the Trust board members decide to look into these negotiation pointers even if it sends the message out that the Trust mean business and potentially ruffles a few feathers.

Again, having Trust Board members linked to the club in terms of their own business interests and I think we have dug ourselves into a bit of a hole with that.

The club maybe commercially run like it's still in League 2 but the Trust needs to step up, in earnest, like it's now in the Premier League.

You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Poll: With what we've seen since June, Potter in, players out etc, are the Americans

0
(No subject) on 22:37 - Dec 16 with 1261 viewsParlay

(No subject) on 22:10 - Dec 16 by Shaky

Fact is you know bugger all about the world of finance, Parley, and there is only one word for your belief in your prophetic abilities; delusional.


You think its delusion that Vincent tan rebranded the club to aim to appeal to target market of a far eastern float? You may have to look into that one Shaky considering that is exactky what he tried to do

If you think these guys are going to come in and chuck the necessary hundreds of millions at us to improve the stature and thus value of the club in order to make a profit then maybe id suggest it is you that severely lack knowledge in the finance world of football.

We are a club that makes a profit - a rarity in todays game. This is gold, they will nit change it for speculative gains when they have almost guaranteed ones. Thats just common sense, regardless of the nonsense you are trying to push.

Forum celebrity
Poll: Is £45 a match ticket too high?

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:38 - Dec 16 with 1255 viewslondonlisa2001

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:24 - Dec 16 by _

Lisa is as bad as Shaky, if not worse. Which is a shame as clearly they both have an enormous amount of knowledge in their areas of expertise.

For any mug still doubting Shaky's credentials then I would just suggest this stops and they begin to listen carefully to what he has to say. He moves in different circles to anyone on here and has his own inimitable style of posting - basically he tells it as it is "offend or please" which gets my respect every time.

He has given piotential scenarios and painted a takeover option which would not all be bad news for us. He's not doing this because he stands to gain anything from it and he certainly is not doing the PR work for the club, although i would be worried the club Directors may approach him for his services with the amount of shit he gets on here.

Where are we with all this at the moment?

I'm guessing only a select few people know and the very handy "NDA' is conveniently hamstringing our connected party in being able to perhaps offer the fan base at large more information.

The very likely scenario, however, is that talks are very advanced and the general mood is being assessed, propoganda formulating, PR exercises being implemented all in order to get the timing of the announcement just right.

The whole Trust set up is clearly an area that needs addressing. What happened with Leigh Dineen back in 2006 and his acquisition of shares and appointment onto the Board itself is nothing short of shocking and he got away lightly on that.

The fact any Trust Board member has personal business interests with the club, no matter how small is fundamentally wrong and strict new rules should be drafted up at the earliest convenience to prevent this from ever happening again and also no Trust Board member should run an Internet forum where their personal opinion could be influencing, no matter how big or small, a sizeable majority of fans.

Having said all that If certain individuals who stand to make a fortune are hell bent on seeng out a deal for themselves we need to cross this particular bridge and deal with all the likely possibilities that could then entail. On that note and I am no expert in high finance, not at all, but Shaky has mentioned on more than one occasion he believes there is a unique potential the Trust could cement its position in the ownership of the club and actually gain some real influence.

If I have this right maybe the current Trust Board members have decided against this strategy due to perhaps wanting to continue close and personable working links with the clubs directors?

He has suggested a few negotiation pointers to help the Trust demand the right protection. If this deal is almost on the table or at least advancing is it time the Trust board members decide to look into these negotiation pointers even if it sends the message out that the Trust mean business and potentially ruffles a few feathers.

Again, having Trust Board members linked to the club in terms of their own business interests and I think we have dug ourselves into a bit of a hole with that.

The club maybe commercially run like it's still in League 2 but the Trust needs to step up, in earnest, like it's now in the Premier League.


The problem with what you say Chis is two fold.

(a) You haven't got a clue what 'circles' anyone on here moves in
(b) Shaky is frequently incorrect and/or simplistic in his arguments which is actually harming the debate.

But fine - if that's what you want to believe then you go ahead.

I can't be bothered any longer. Thankfully the people involved do know what they're talking about which is the important bit to be honest. Plus they care.
0
(No subject) on 22:39 - Dec 16 with 1248 viewsParlay

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:13 - Dec 16 by dgt73

So says the person who doesn't even watch the Swans live anymore ( actually ) inside the liberty and don't start you live in oz bullocks, you didn't even go to the qpr game when you were back in Swansea. Tut tut, hypocrite or what.


1) i do watch Swansea live.
2) at the liberty
3) live in Australia bollocks? Can you pay for my flights back then? $3000 x 19 = $57,000. I await.
4) do you know what hypocritical means as you seem to have used it in the wrong context.
5) what the heck has this got to do with anything i said or are you just being an obsessed teen again?
6) autograph in the post.
[Post edited 16 Dec 2014 22:40]

Forum celebrity
Poll: Is £45 a match ticket too high?

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:48 - Dec 16 with 1229 viewsmonmouth

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:38 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001

The problem with what you say Chis is two fold.

(a) You haven't got a clue what 'circles' anyone on here moves in
(b) Shaky is frequently incorrect and/or simplistic in his arguments which is actually harming the debate.

But fine - if that's what you want to believe then you go ahead.

I can't be bothered any longer. Thankfully the people involved do know what they're talking about which is the important bit to be honest. Plus they care.


That's me done too I think. You pays your money and takes your choice Chris but Lisa is absolutely right. Shaky's financial 'knowledge' is laughable. I'm saying no more but honestly, if the guy were really a corporate adviser (and I've employed a few in my time), and what he's said on here over many threads is representative of his real knowledge, that would be truly scary for any company that was dull enough to employ him. I'm not getting into a slanging match though, so I'm going to throw that particular stone and run away, before he calls me 'sonny' again :) . As I say, anyone is entitled to believe whoever's story they want. It is the internet after all.

Poll: TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:50 - Dec 16 with 1216 views_

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:38 - Dec 16 by londonlisa2001

The problem with what you say Chis is two fold.

(a) You haven't got a clue what 'circles' anyone on here moves in
(b) Shaky is frequently incorrect and/or simplistic in his arguments which is actually harming the debate.

But fine - if that's what you want to believe then you go ahead.

I can't be bothered any longer. Thankfully the people involved do know what they're talking about which is the important bit to be honest. Plus they care.


Caring means naff all when it boils down to it though, does it?! Caring about something you can't control or when it's too late or even when you may not have the "right" people "caring".... again, all very cute and noble but totally irrelevant in many ways.

On your first point its also irrelevant but bear it in mind, and Lis, I like you, but to pick you up on a comment from you earlier about your being the most easy going person ever.... Whoa!! Come on, do you really believe that?

And maybe you can reply to the main points in the post rather than just pick out the bits you feel hard done by. I'm like Shaky in the fact that I also say it like I think it. Don't take it personally, it's not a pop at you, not whatsoever.

You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Poll: With what we've seen since June, Potter in, players out etc, are the Americans

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:52 - Dec 16 with 1208 views_

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:48 - Dec 16 by monmouth

That's me done too I think. You pays your money and takes your choice Chris but Lisa is absolutely right. Shaky's financial 'knowledge' is laughable. I'm saying no more but honestly, if the guy were really a corporate adviser (and I've employed a few in my time), and what he's said on here over many threads is representative of his real knowledge, that would be truly scary for any company that was dull enough to employ him. I'm not getting into a slanging match though, so I'm going to throw that particular stone and run away, before he calls me 'sonny' again :) . As I say, anyone is entitled to believe whoever's story they want. It is the internet after all.


Too many are reacting to Shakys manner rather than the substance of his points.

You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Poll: With what we've seen since June, Potter in, players out etc, are the Americans

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:58 - Dec 16 with 1188 viewsmonmouth

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:52 - Dec 16 by _

Too many are reacting to Shakys manner rather than the substance of his points.


No. What I'm saying is exactly the opposite.

Poll: TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:04 - Dec 16 with 1178 viewsperchrockjack

Lisa's.

Take care.


Dick

Poll: Who has left Wales and why

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:04 - Dec 16 with 1180 viewsjackonicko

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:52 - Dec 16 by _

Too many are reacting to Shakys manner rather than the substance of his points.


Who knows what his credentials are? He couldn't run away fast enough when it was suggested he put them to use to help the trust. Regardless of what those credentials may be, his credibility was shot to pieces right there, right then.

Shaky's posts are textbook perfect. At times, he even gives us photos of the textbook. But they usually bear no relation to reality.

Personally, I find him amusing. But no more than that.
1
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:05 - Dec 16 with 1176 viewslondonlisa2001

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:52 - Dec 16 by _

Too many are reacting to Shakys manner rather than the substance of his points.


no Chris - he genuinely does not know what he is talking about on a wide range of financial matters.

His manner just makes it impossible to have a sensible conversation about it. For example - he has been quite wrong on the subject of various forms of debt in the past day or so. The substance is just wrong. His manner, however, means that when his inaccuracies are pointed out to him, he refuses to accept it and resorts to insults and attempts to bully people.

And Chris - this is important stuff. It's really important that people understand that if the Americans saddle the club with £20m debt from them (which is obviously an unknown - we were all simply having a conversation about it) it is debt in the same way as it would be if it was from HSBC. If we got relegated and it goes tits up, we would owe that money and they could take us under - sell the stadium, sell the players, whatever was secured against the debt to get that money back.
0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:07 - Dec 16 with 1168 viewslondonlisa2001

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:04 - Dec 16 by perchrockjack

Lisa's.

Take care.


Dick


cheers Rich - I'm not personally upset though - at the end of the day it's football, not life or death, it's just frustrating that's all !
0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:08 - Dec 16 with 1166 views_

"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 22:58 - Dec 16 by monmouth

No. What I'm saying is exactly the opposite.


No... Please allow me to diagree with you respectfully, I think you are one of the best posters on here.

But he called you "sonny" in the past it seems which has wound you up enough to mention it here. Lisa doesn't do that and but that in itself doesn't always make her points right and his wrong.

You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Poll: With what we've seen since June, Potter in, players out etc, are the Americans

0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:12 - Dec 16 with 1154 viewsperchrockjack

It's important Lisa but health family always first.

I d say, with respect, you re a tough bitch and not unlike my daughter who s building her own embryonic business empire.

I always think I could de dead by the morning , that s my mantra really.

It helps anyway.

G night

Poll: Who has left Wales and why

0
(No subject) on 23:14 - Dec 16 with 1150 viewsDarran

Warren Buffett: Chrissy listen to me now Shaky doesn't know what he's talking about.

Chrissy: Fack off Buff you facking mug WTF do you know?

I'm loving the way this thread is going.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: Who’s got the most experts

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024