By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I'll be honest.. two threads I've posted on 'commercial' and 'investment' matters I've been taking CEOs..Chairman's..Business owners..financial experts..managers..billionaires all to the cleaners.. I know absolutely f*ck all.. I don't even look anything up.. f*cking expert this.. expert that.. Jesus Christ.. can you imagine if I was skilled.. shock of the week.. football club is going into debt shocker.. the 'investor' wants his money back shocker.. billionaire involved with debt, profits and results shocker.. look.. the main point is.. when a billionaire has a majority share in a company.. he's got the final say.. he can debt us up.. he can interest us up.. he can do anything.. plus nobody has the expertise or social acumen to work out a billionaire investor.. have you ever heard of the billionaires circle?.. you lot don't even know what true 'business' is.. they're levels above..
The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds.
I wasn't sure to what degree of responsibly you had taken on board.
I don't know you personally but you are very level headed it seems.
It's just a bit of a worry there's so few making such big decisions on behalfof so many. But that's the way it is I guess.
What big decisions have been taken please that have been taken by so few.
If you are talking about the investment then to my knowledge no shares have changed hands, no money has been invested (or even lent on that basis) or no ownership of the club has changed
Nobody has made any decisions on anything which is why your decisions that people in the Trust are making the wrong decisions are just comical
What though you do seem hell bent on is actually now trying your best to divide the support amongst the fans at a time when most people will tell you we need to be united. Must be the CF postcode in you that makes that want to happen?
Still, it's your view and you are entitled to it
0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 08:22 - Dec 17 with 1688 views
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.
Ha ha. Not at all. I wish more people would call me sonny instead of old miserable git! What I took offence at was that he had no real idea of the half-understood content he was spouting like an autistic zombie. I don't like to give things away on the internet (I think anyone that does is braver than me) so as I say you pays your money and takes your choice. I could be smart or I could be a clown. Shaky has made one truly excellent and important post (the opportunity to use current shareholder pressure to set protections and rights in stone in perpertuity).
The rest are mainly nonsense or irrelevant, a distraction or downright silly - In my opinion, obviously. I really do play the post, not the poster. Always. (except Mr Swan, sorry Mr Swan).
On that point, I also think what you are doing in terms of visibility is good and important, and I really enjoy your posts, but I think any Trust issues (such as what does independence look like, and the really tricky role of the trust director) are now a distraction and should be parked. The Trust has been clear. No change of ownership required and, unless that view changes, that is the drum we should be banging constantly. Many still don't seem to realise that there is no investment through a simple share sale and the club would be worse off in that case. Getting that message inexorably into 20,000 heads would be a start. But how to do it......?
Ha ha. Not at all. I wish more people would call me sonny instead of old miserable git! What I took offence at was that he had no real idea of the half-understood content he was spouting like an autistic zombie. I don't like to give things away on the internet (I think anyone that does is braver than me) so as I say you pays your money and takes your choice. I could be smart or I could be a clown. Shaky has made one truly excellent and important post (the opportunity to use current shareholder pressure to set protections and rights in stone in perpertuity).
The rest are mainly nonsense or irrelevant, a distraction or downright silly - In my opinion, obviously. I really do play the post, not the poster. Always. (except Mr Swan, sorry Mr Swan).
On that point, I also think what you are doing in terms of visibility is good and important, and I really enjoy your posts, but I think any Trust issues (such as what does independence look like, and the really tricky role of the trust director) are now a distraction and should be parked. The Trust has been clear. No change of ownership required and, unless that view changes, that is the drum we should be banging constantly. Many still don't seem to realise that there is no investment through a simple share sale and the club would be worse off in that case. Getting that message inexorably into 20,000 heads would be a start. But how to do it......?
[Post edited 17 Dec 2014 9:05]
How about a banner at the next home game. It's what started this thread.
What big decisions have been taken please that have been taken by so few.
If you are talking about the investment then to my knowledge no shares have changed hands, no money has been invested (or even lent on that basis) or no ownership of the club has changed
Nobody has made any decisions on anything which is why your decisions that people in the Trust are making the wrong decisions are just comical
What though you do seem hell bent on is actually now trying your best to divide the support amongst the fans at a time when most people will tell you we need to be united. Must be the CF postcode in you that makes that want to happen?
Still, it's your view and you are entitled to it
What an absolute cock of a comment....fair play you can be a sarky tvvat at the best of times but that took the biscuit.
The principles i have concern with still stand and most have agreed it's just not right. You see it differently because you run this site for profit for one.
The old pals act is like a throwback to the 70's and 80's and the Trust has gone stale and has no real influence over absolutely anything.
That, my boy, is where I'm from....
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Ha ha. Not at all. I wish more people would call me sonny instead of old miserable git! What I took offence at was that he had no real idea of the half-understood content he was spouting like an autistic zombie. I don't like to give things away on the internet (I think anyone that does is braver than me) so as I say you pays your money and takes your choice. I could be smart or I could be a clown. Shaky has made one truly excellent and important post (the opportunity to use current shareholder pressure to set protections and rights in stone in perpertuity).
The rest are mainly nonsense or irrelevant, a distraction or downright silly - In my opinion, obviously. I really do play the post, not the poster. Always. (except Mr Swan, sorry Mr Swan).
On that point, I also think what you are doing in terms of visibility is good and important, and I really enjoy your posts, but I think any Trust issues (such as what does independence look like, and the really tricky role of the trust director) are now a distraction and should be parked. The Trust has been clear. No change of ownership required and, unless that view changes, that is the drum we should be banging constantly. Many still don't seem to realise that there is no investment through a simple share sale and the club would be worse off in that case. Getting that message inexorably into 20,000 heads would be a start. But how to do it......?
[Post edited 17 Dec 2014 9:05]
Ok fair comments but don't you have any reservations the Trust hierarchy are too close to the Board to be making that stance?
They've got history and are only human after all.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
Ok fair comments but don't you have any reservations the Trust hierarchy are too close to the Board to be making that stance?
They've got history and are only human after all.
I'm actually comforted by their stance mate. That statement would be the last thing anyone on the board looking to sell us down the river would have wanted to see surely?
In practical terms, this particular scenario will be resolved under current structures and personnel anyway, no? I'm not saying that this shock shouldn't cause a serious reflection on the model and how it works (I don't think things can be the same after this anyway, however it plays out), but do I think the current Trust folk would be the ones selling us out? No I don't. I think they are very much on a war footing.
What an absolute cock of a comment....fair play you can be a sarky tvvat at the best of times but that took the biscuit.
The principles i have concern with still stand and most have agreed it's just not right. You see it differently because you run this site for profit for one.
The old pals act is like a throwback to the 70's and 80's and the Trust has gone stale and has no real influence over absolutely anything.
That, my boy, is where I'm from....
Reverted to type again Chris with the abuse, maybe you would like to meet me as well as that is normally what is asked of those who disagree with you?
You will be surprised to see that you are massively in the minority at this point in time, I won't share with you the comments I get from people who read your posts (or even their views of you) as I suspect you don't really care but keep going with the bully boy tactics and dividing the support to your best ability which is exactly what you are trying to achieve
You didn't like the comment because you know it is true, I can see it, many can see it and you know deep down it is true as well.
There is an election process that comes around next summer, you know what to do
Oh and I make no profit off this site at all so please not go back down the myth that started in 2001 when I first took it over
All said without the need of abuse too
0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 09:45 - Dec 17 with 1565 views
Reverted to type again Chris with the abuse, maybe you would like to meet me as well as that is normally what is asked of those who disagree with you?
You will be surprised to see that you are massively in the minority at this point in time, I won't share with you the comments I get from people who read your posts (or even their views of you) as I suspect you don't really care but keep going with the bully boy tactics and dividing the support to your best ability which is exactly what you are trying to achieve
You didn't like the comment because you know it is true, I can see it, many can see it and you know deep down it is true as well.
There is an election process that comes around next summer, you know what to do
Oh and I make no profit off this site at all so please not go back down the myth that started in 2001 when I first took it over
All said without the need of abuse too
So it's because I live in a CF postcode is it?
And I stand by everything else i said.
You're all out of time....the past was yours but the future's mine.
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 23:04 - Dec 16 by jackonicko
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.
My posts are textbook perfect but bear no resemblance to reality?
That's a masterpiece of logic even by your standards, but since you jokers are all engaged in an all out Shaky offensive following my most recent rout of Lisa, I believe it is important to acknowledge the movement that statement represents; not only for education, but importantly also for entertainment purposes.
Remember when I first came to these forums and the subject of finance emerged? You and Uxbridge were adamant I was Dimi, a position you maintained for at least 6 months longer than your chum until - what?- early this year.
Now the thing is that I only have to read a few remarks of Dimi/Parlay's to know he doesn't have any other relevant experience except from maybe reading the business section.
By contrast my first discussions with you involved me preparing a valuation of the club, normalising the profits to take out non-recurring items than applying a textbook PE multiple and contrasting it to prevailing market pricing.
Anybody with a genuine professional understanding of finance would have nodded, and said yup, this guy knows what he is doing.
You on the other hand in a piece of in farcical schoolboy maths error misplaced the decimal point by 3 places going from the valuation of a 5% stake to a 100% of the value, you pretentious little f*cking dunce, while steadfastly maintaining I was dimi.
Then we gradually moved into the Google/Wikipedia phase. Everything I knew about finance I learnt from Google and Wikipedia was the universal retort, but everything I could back up with those sources - obviously being the most easily accessible - was wrong.
This is a line of argument not unlike the conspiracy theory of society, which posits that all outcomes no matter whether they are seemingly consistent or not consistent with the purported aims of the conspiracy are its direct result. Seemingly a comprehensive line of argument, but unfortunately one that is easily dismissed as nonsense.
Now that we have conclusively established I have a specialist library on finance, strategy, and M&A, the argument has once again moved on.
Yes, I may have a lot of niche books on a fairly broad range of topics, but I have had the grave misfortune to spend several thousand pounds on books that are all wrong.
And who are the bunch of people so expert in the fields of finance and mergers and acquisitions that they are able to tell me and the authors of these specialist books they are completely clueless? Why a bunch of bookkeepers I have maintained don't know their collective arses from their elbows since first making your acquaintances on this forum.
Darren, this guy is no Warren Buffet, you f*cking moron.
No Chris I just wonder why you have elected to use this moment to try and divide the support - doesn't seem like something that would benefit anyone at this point whether you agree or not.
I am sure you do stand by everything else you said, in fact I am comforted by the fact that you do because of the pure abuse that you use, it tells me all I need to know about where you are coming from and what you are saying.
You don't want to hear arguments against your view, in fact you just resort to abuse or "Who are you" comments when people even dare to disagree with you.
You are entitled to your view without a doubt and I hear it but every time someone argues against you, you ignore most of the points and jump on a few. I suspect that is why you defend Shaky so much as he works on a similar philosophy.
Ha ha. Not at all. I wish more people would call me sonny instead of old miserable git! What I took offence at was that he had no real idea of the half-understood content he was spouting like an autistic zombie. I don't like to give things away on the internet (I think anyone that does is braver than me) so as I say you pays your money and takes your choice. I could be smart or I could be a clown. Shaky has made one truly excellent and important post (the opportunity to use current shareholder pressure to set protections and rights in stone in perpertuity).
The rest are mainly nonsense or irrelevant, a distraction or downright silly - In my opinion, obviously. I really do play the post, not the poster. Always. (except Mr Swan, sorry Mr Swan).
On that point, I also think what you are doing in terms of visibility is good and important, and I really enjoy your posts, but I think any Trust issues (such as what does independence look like, and the really tricky role of the trust director) are now a distraction and should be parked. The Trust has been clear. No change of ownership required and, unless that view changes, that is the drum we should be banging constantly. Many still don't seem to realise that there is no investment through a simple share sale and the club would be worse off in that case. Getting that message inexorably into 20,000 heads would be a start. But how to do it......?
[Post edited 17 Dec 2014 9:05]
Long on vacuous bullshit and totally lacking any kind of substance.
Tell me do you ghost write for Lisa? Or vice versa?
My posts are textbook perfect but bear no resemblance to reality?
That's a masterpiece of logic even by your standards, but since you jokers are all engaged in an all out Shaky offensive following my most recent rout of Lisa, I believe it is important to acknowledge the movement that statement represents; not only for education, but importantly also for entertainment purposes.
Remember when I first came to these forums and the subject of finance emerged? You and Uxbridge were adamant I was Dimi, a position you maintained for at least 6 months longer than your chum until - what?- early this year.
Now the thing is that I only have to read a few remarks of Dimi/Parlay's to know he doesn't have any other relevant experience except from maybe reading the business section.
By contrast my first discussions with you involved me preparing a valuation of the club, normalising the profits to take out non-recurring items than applying a textbook PE multiple and contrasting it to prevailing market pricing.
Anybody with a genuine professional understanding of finance would have nodded, and said yup, this guy knows what he is doing.
You on the other hand in a piece of in farcical schoolboy maths error misplaced the decimal point by 3 places going from the valuation of a 5% stake to a 100% of the value, you pretentious little f*cking dunce, while steadfastly maintaining I was dimi.
Then we gradually moved into the Google/Wikipedia phase. Everything I knew about finance I learnt from Google and Wikipedia was the universal retort, but everything I could back up with those sources - obviously being the most easily accessible - was wrong.
This is a line of argument not unlike the conspiracy theory of society, which posits that all outcomes no matter whether they are seemingly consistent or not consistent with the purported aims of the conspiracy are its direct result. Seemingly a comprehensive line of argument, but unfortunately one that is easily dismissed as nonsense.
Now that we have conclusively established I have a specialist library on finance, strategy, and M&A, the argument has once again moved on.
Yes, I may have a lot of niche books on a fairly broad range of topics, but I have had the grave misfortune to spend several thousand pounds on books that are all wrong.
And who are the bunch of people so expert in the fields of finance and mergers and acquisitions that they are able to tell me and the authors of these specialist books they are completely clueless? Why a bunch of bookkeepers I have maintained don't know their collective arses from their elbows since first making your acquaintances on this forum.
Darren, this guy is no Warren Buffet, you f*cking moron.
I did also say your posts amuse me. This one is one of your more amusing ones.
But therein lies the difference, Shaky. For those of us who are swans fans, it's our f*cking problem too.
Now perhaps you will be good enough to enlighten us why existing shareholders and fans alike to be so fearfully concerned about what sort of returns the Mercuns will make?
Now perhaps you will be good enough to enlighten us why existing shareholders and fans alike to be so fearfully concerned about what sort of returns the Mercuns will make?
Surely any returns that they make is money that will not be going into the club.
Their intention will be to make money, they are not a non - profit making organisation.
Although you deem it irrelevant their motivation for getting involved in the club is of great interest.
If their plan is to make x additional revenue for the club and to take y out (y less than x) people will be interested. If they are going to take y out irrespective of whether it is less than x people will be concerned.
0
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 11:06 - Dec 17 with 1431 views
Surely any returns that they make is money that will not be going into the club.
Their intention will be to make money, they are not a non - profit making organisation.
Although you deem it irrelevant their motivation for getting involved in the club is of great interest.
If their plan is to make x additional revenue for the club and to take y out (y less than x) people will be interested. If they are going to take y out irrespective of whether it is less than x people will be concerned.
There are 2 ways the investor can obtain a return on the ordinary shares we know they want to buy; taking out a dividend and selling them on.
If they want to strip every single penny of share cash out of the club as Parlay has prophesied, that would obviously be most unwelcome. However, I don't believe it is even a remote possibility because it is highly likely to be suicidal in terms of the impact on the resale value. Furthermore, there are ways of protecting against this sort of thing, for example by specifying a maximum percentage of the clubs profits that can be paid out in dividends.
At the same time there are all sorts of ways the investor can make a loss selling the shares on, or not reach their target for returns generated. However, I don't believe we need to concern ourselves with vouchsafing the Mercun Private Equity investors the news that the value of their shares can go up as well as down.
Let's say market conditions deteriorate considerably and although there is no change in the clubs fortunes or position in 5years time the club is only wort £50million rather than the £100million they paid.
The Mercuns will be disappointed but they will be able to deal with it. So will Jenkins and any other remaining investors because they are still up 50x on what they put in originally. And in the world of Private Equity a 10x or ten bagger in the jargon is considered a home run.
I'm actually comforted by their stance mate. That statement would be the last thing anyone on the board looking to sell us down the river would have wanted to see surely?
In practical terms, this particular scenario will be resolved under current structures and personnel anyway, no? I'm not saying that this shock shouldn't cause a serious reflection on the model and how it works (I don't think things can be the same after this anyway, however it plays out), but do I think the current Trust folk would be the ones selling us out? No I don't. I think they are very much on a war footing.
What everyone wants is information and its the one thing that the trust board cannot provide at this time. From my experience it will be a difficult and frustrating position for them.
They are our elected representatives and I have every confidence in the trust board and the trust director to represent us.
we all have differing views, which is not a bad thing, and i respect the viewsof others, however now is a time for us to show a united front behind the trust.
We know how the clowns up the road have reacted and continue to behave, based on their recently reported antics in Bournemouth. One thing to learn from themis how easy their fan base has been divided and how so many of their fans have lost focus of what is important.
I would support the trust and wait to hear further when they are able to say more. Remember their current position is that they see no need for change.
Elections will be coming up next year, that will be n opportune time for people who think that they have something to add to the trust to stand up.
3
"MOORE'S THE PETTY" on 12:02 - Dec 17 with 1325 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
