| A Pipe Dream... 23:29 - Feb 20 with 9463 views | Phil_S |
Or is it - it happened at Portsmouth on a smaller scale and dream big as you never know what could happen.
At a valuation of £100m, the 4% of shares that would make a massive difference to us is worth £4m. We have £650k in the bank with another possible dividend this year taking that to £850k (if it happens)
Are we capable through fan donations (and those from local businesses) capable of raising £3.2m to make a substantial offer for those shares? Should we try? |  | | |  |
| A Pipe Dream... on 10:04 - Feb 22 with 1915 views | dobjack2 |
| A Pipe Dream... on 09:52 - Feb 22 by Phil_S |
Huw and I talked this concept through at yesterday's game
One thing we agreed on is the post earlier in the thread that there is no point in fundraising if we don't have an end goal to work towards
We need to know we can buy the shares first... |
It shouldn't be just about money its safeguarding the future of the club their investment helped save. if it is just about money they should be embarrassed in public. A shame that the evening post doesn't do investigations or ask searching questions. |  | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 09:49 - Feb 24 with 1838 views | lovejuicejack |
| A Pipe Dream... on 09:52 - Feb 22 by Phil_S |
Huw and I talked this concept through at yesterday's game
One thing we agreed on is the post earlier in the thread that there is no point in fundraising if we don't have an end goal to work towards
We need to know we can buy the shares first... |
It's the chicken and egg situation tho, if the board turned round and said ok you can buy the 5% shares you would want the funds sitting there in the account to get it done. |  | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 10:00 - Feb 24 with 1830 views | Nookiejack |
| A Pipe Dream... on 10:04 - Feb 22 by dobjack2 |
It shouldn't be just about money its safeguarding the future of the club their investment helped save. if it is just about money they should be embarrassed in public. A shame that the evening post doesn't do investigations or ask searching questions. |
Yet another person questioning their greed. They have to be really careful here as they are going to be remembered for their greed - not for why they went into this in the first place.
I totally agree the Evening post should explore this. | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 10:51 - Feb 24 with 1808 views | Bloodyhills |
| A Pipe Dream... on 23:44 - Feb 20 by londonlisa2001 |
I think that it can be done (the money raising part of it) but it's only worth while if the other shareholders would be prepared to countenance selling to the Trust.
Why would they agree to it if they didn't agree to the Trust buying Mel's shares back?
As soon as they allow the Trust over 25% then their dreams of a multi million pound windfall are gone. No outside investor is going to buy a club for £100m where they have an immoveable supporter's trust holding a blocking %?
If you did raise that sort of money and then were unable to do anything with it, it may become counter productive as it would look like the money was being raised under false pretences? |
Maybe fan pressure needs to be brought to bear on the other share holders. If they are dead serious about the club's future they will allow it to reach the Trust to reach the 25% needed to guarantee the future of SCFC. True they wouldn't get as much for their shareholdings but how much money do they need. | |
| |
| A Pipe Dream... on 11:41 - Feb 24 with 1791 views | scottishjack |
I have absolutely no idea regarding the politics behind buying the shares, but with regards the OP, with a realistic timescale, and maybe a couple of different methods of payment, (I.e. Some people could pay a subscription, others can pay what they can, when they can?) I am sure the money could be raised.
I currently pay a monthly sub to Foundation of Hearts, as some will be aware, they were in serious trouble, as we were some years ago. They persuaded a wealthy benefactor to stump up the money for the club on the condition that within 5 years they would raise the money to pay her back and take control of the club.
It's very different circumstances with the Swans flying high at the moment, but the amount of money to be raised is very similar, and we have a higher number of ST holders and our attendances are a few thousand higher than Hearts, it's achievable over maybe a 4 year timescale.
Added to which, our situation is nowhere near as dire as Hearts were in last year. |  | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 12:15 - Feb 24 with 1781 views | MrGreedy |
| A Pipe Dream... on 11:41 - Feb 24 by scottishjack |
I have absolutely no idea regarding the politics behind buying the shares, but with regards the OP, with a realistic timescale, and maybe a couple of different methods of payment, (I.e. Some people could pay a subscription, others can pay what they can, when they can?) I am sure the money could be raised.
I currently pay a monthly sub to Foundation of Hearts, as some will be aware, they were in serious trouble, as we were some years ago. They persuaded a wealthy benefactor to stump up the money for the club on the condition that within 5 years they would raise the money to pay her back and take control of the club.
It's very different circumstances with the Swans flying high at the moment, but the amount of money to be raised is very similar, and we have a higher number of ST holders and our attendances are a few thousand higher than Hearts, it's achievable over maybe a 4 year timescale.
Added to which, our situation is nowhere near as dire as Hearts were in last year. |
It has been a long time since I have posted on here. But, I think the issue regarding ownership is the most important issue since the days of Petty. IF, the Trust were told by a shareholder or shareholders that they would sell, the Trust must try and raise the money given the importance of a 25% stake. However, I see the following problems:
1. The value of shares is only going to increase whilst we are where we are, especially in light of the new TV deal. I wouldn't be surprised if existing shareholders have increased their valuation.
2. The period of time to raise the money is likely to be extensive.
3. Any shareholders initially willing to sell are likely to come under huge pressure not to from fellow shareholders.
What puzzles me in all this is that on the face of it all shareholders except the Trust were willing to sell some shares. There appears to be no concern about their legacy or long term future of the club. If it IS a time issue, they could recruit a Chief Executive to run the show. I'm afraid from the outside looking in, it appears that they were only interested in personal profit regarding the American sale. | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 12:50 - Feb 24 with 1756 views | cockneyswan |
I'm going to show my ignorance here, it's probably already been explained but why is 25% shareholding so "magical" for the trust? Does this percentage prevent any other majority shareholding making decisions about "our club" ?
Honest question.
If this is the case (the Trust has control) then I think this is something we as a trust should strive for. |  | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 13:05 - Feb 24 with 1734 views | Pegojack |
Just converted my e-membership to full membership online.
Come on, e-members, get on with it! Only another £3,199,990 to go....... |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| A Pipe Dream... on 13:51 - Feb 24 with 1706 views | el_pancho |
How about buying the shares via stealth.
Get someone with a deep enough pocket to buy the 4% of shares from the various shareholders (so they don't know it is the trust!), and then get that person to sell on to the trust, rewarding them for doing so.
Not sure if this is possible... or even legal... but hey ho! | |
| |
| A Pipe Dream... on 13:54 - Feb 24 with 1702 views | MattG |
There's been a lot of talk about how the value of the Club to potential buyers would drop in the event that the Trust managed to get its shareholding above 25% but does anyone have a real feel for what this drop would be?
Even assuming a 50% drop so that the total value of the Club was £50m (which seems unlikely given our players / facilities / other assets) rather than £100m, a 30% stake would still cost the not inconsiderable sum of £15m.
Even assuming the 30% up for grabs was split equally between all of the non-Trust shareholders on a pro-rata basis, that would still mean a payout of £4.5m for the major shareholder (MM) and even £1m for those with 50k shares (LD / JVZ).
Even if the value dropped by 75%, MM would still walk away with £2.25m while, at the other end of the spectrum, LD / JVZ would get £Â½m each.
All that is obviously on top of whatever dividends they have already received as well as their share of whatever payment the Trust might make for the outstanding 3.7%. Still a pretty decent return, IMO. |  | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:27 - Feb 24 with 1669 views | SwansEvents |
| A Pipe Dream... on 13:54 - Feb 24 by MattG |
There's been a lot of talk about how the value of the Club to potential buyers would drop in the event that the Trust managed to get its shareholding above 25% but does anyone have a real feel for what this drop would be?
Even assuming a 50% drop so that the total value of the Club was £50m (which seems unlikely given our players / facilities / other assets) rather than £100m, a 30% stake would still cost the not inconsiderable sum of £15m.
Even assuming the 30% up for grabs was split equally between all of the non-Trust shareholders on a pro-rata basis, that would still mean a payout of £4.5m for the major shareholder (MM) and even £1m for those with 50k shares (LD / JVZ).
Even if the value dropped by 75%, MM would still walk away with £2.25m while, at the other end of the spectrum, LD / JVZ would get £Â½m each.
All that is obviously on top of whatever dividends they have already received as well as their share of whatever payment the Trust might make for the outstanding 3.7%. Still a pretty decent return, IMO. |
I don't think the monetary value of the shares will be affected THAT much, I think £100m was cheap anyway for a business which turns over that and more in one year.
It's more value in terms of attraction. If someone can only ever own 75% of a business with the other 25% being a right pain in your money making plans, then it's not really that attractive a proposition.
the thing is with the trust owning less than 25%, is that any new owner does not need their permission to create new shares and buy them up themselves (knowing the trust don't have the finances to buy them) which means the owners can dilute the trusts shareholding and increase their own % that way.
While the trust stays at 21% the sharks will be circling with each passing increased TV deal and that's exactly what the shareholders want. The more sharks, the more likelihood of their big payday.
But make no mistake, while the club may have come first initially and money second - now money comes first and the club second for the shareholders. anyone who cannot see that needs to take their Jack to a King blinkers off.
If 12 years ago when they stuck their 50k in, somebody said "tell you what, give the trust 0.7% each and you can all draw out £300k a year and have your shares worth £1m for every % you own" they would have snapped your hand off as they can be rich men and protect the club.
now they have got used to the rich life and almost forgetting why they did this in the first place, it is seemingly seen as absurd for them to protect the club if it means taking a few hundred grand less of their already tens of millions of pounds worth of shares.
Sad really. | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:36 - Feb 24 with 1659 views | MrGreedy |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:27 - Feb 24 by SwansEvents |
I don't think the monetary value of the shares will be affected THAT much, I think £100m was cheap anyway for a business which turns over that and more in one year.
It's more value in terms of attraction. If someone can only ever own 75% of a business with the other 25% being a right pain in your money making plans, then it's not really that attractive a proposition.
the thing is with the trust owning less than 25%, is that any new owner does not need their permission to create new shares and buy them up themselves (knowing the trust don't have the finances to buy them) which means the owners can dilute the trusts shareholding and increase their own % that way.
While the trust stays at 21% the sharks will be circling with each passing increased TV deal and that's exactly what the shareholders want. The more sharks, the more likelihood of their big payday.
But make no mistake, while the club may have come first initially and money second - now money comes first and the club second for the shareholders. anyone who cannot see that needs to take their Jack to a King blinkers off.
If 12 years ago when they stuck their 50k in, somebody said "tell you what, give the trust 0.7% each and you can all draw out £300k a year and have your shares worth £1m for every % you own" they would have snapped your hand off as they can be rich men and protect the club.
now they have got used to the rich life and almost forgetting why they did this in the first place, it is seemingly seen as absurd for them to protect the club if it means taking a few hundred grand less of their already tens of millions of pounds worth of shares.
Sad really. |
Spot on. | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:40 - Feb 24 with 1657 views | cockneyswan |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:27 - Feb 24 by SwansEvents |
I don't think the monetary value of the shares will be affected THAT much, I think £100m was cheap anyway for a business which turns over that and more in one year.
It's more value in terms of attraction. If someone can only ever own 75% of a business with the other 25% being a right pain in your money making plans, then it's not really that attractive a proposition.
the thing is with the trust owning less than 25%, is that any new owner does not need their permission to create new shares and buy them up themselves (knowing the trust don't have the finances to buy them) which means the owners can dilute the trusts shareholding and increase their own % that way.
While the trust stays at 21% the sharks will be circling with each passing increased TV deal and that's exactly what the shareholders want. The more sharks, the more likelihood of their big payday.
But make no mistake, while the club may have come first initially and money second - now money comes first and the club second for the shareholders. anyone who cannot see that needs to take their Jack to a King blinkers off.
If 12 years ago when they stuck their 50k in, somebody said "tell you what, give the trust 0.7% each and you can all draw out £300k a year and have your shares worth £1m for every % you own" they would have snapped your hand off as they can be rich men and protect the club.
now they have got used to the rich life and almost forgetting why they did this in the first place, it is seemingly seen as absurd for them to protect the club if it means taking a few hundred grand less of their already tens of millions of pounds worth of shares.
Sad really. |
Thanks for the explanation of the importance of the Trust owning 25%.
After your explanation I believe 25% should be the 1st priority for the Trust, we must do everything we can to prevent a return to the days of Petty (it's actually not that long ago).
Swansea City have achieved so much since Petty let's preserve what we have got. | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:48 - Feb 24 with 1650 views | Clinton |
| A Pipe Dream... on 10:02 - Feb 22 by Phil_S |
Talked that through too that it could almost embarrass them into it... |
JVS, for example, does not seem to be easily embarrassed.  |  |
| If you can fill the unforgiving minute.
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son! |
| |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:51 - Feb 24 with 1644 views | SwansEvents |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:40 - Feb 24 by cockneyswan |
Thanks for the explanation of the importance of the Trust owning 25%.
After your explanation I believe 25% should be the 1st priority for the Trust, we must do everything we can to prevent a return to the days of Petty (it's actually not that long ago).
Swansea City have achieved so much since Petty let's preserve what we have got. |
That is my understanding anyway, I am sure someone will correct me if I am a bit off. | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 16:31 - Feb 24 with 1624 views | MrGreedy |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:51 - Feb 24 by SwansEvents |
That is my understanding anyway, I am sure someone will correct me if I am a bit off. |
The current shareholders have a lot of goodwill and kudos as a result of their great achievements in firstly saving the club and then guiding it to becoming an established PL club. However, in my view that does not entitle them to dispose of their shares as they see fit. They have always presented the club as being owned by the fans, for the fans. Selling to the highest or only bidder with little regard for the future completely undermines that ethos.
If they truly believe in that ethos they will between them sell enough shares to the Trust to take it to 25%.
I will not be holding my breath waiting for it to happen. | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 17:17 - Feb 24 with 1611 views | tarka |
| A Pipe Dream... on 15:40 - Feb 24 by cockneyswan |
Thanks for the explanation of the importance of the Trust owning 25%.
After your explanation I believe 25% should be the 1st priority for the Trust, we must do everything we can to prevent a return to the days of Petty (it's actually not that long ago).
Swansea City have achieved so much since Petty let's preserve what we have got. |
Agree
A lot could be down to shareholder agreements but I think I am correct in saying that, when the shares have been diluted to a certain extent, one potential natural progression could be forcibly buying out the Trust completely.
Given where we started from, for the other shareholders to have supported the concept of guaranteeing questionable money men a controlling interest in our club, whilst deliberately keeping the Trust weak and in danger of obliteration from the club, purely to maximise profit, is pretty shocking. Especially given the PR use made from fan ownership.
Some shareholders may be totally profit motivated, but presumably others (that value their reputations with the club more) could be persuaded to work with the Trust to achieve the 25% +. Despite the previous refusals
We need to push for such an agreement for the Trust to achieve at a "fair" price (consider Mel Nurse - but more if they insist) the less than 4% we need for this degree of protection. If necessary bringing pressure to bear. We can then fund raise to achieve this.
If this is not negotiable then the shareholders stance, it's potential catastrophic repercussions for the Trust and their apparent objectives for this, need to be clearly publicised.
The reward from the Trust would be a commitment to positively approach any future sale to suitable buyers, thus helping facilitate the current shareholders still selling at a premium price. | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 21:41 - Feb 24 with 1544 views | Dyfnant |
| A Pipe Dream... on 12:15 - Feb 24 by MrGreedy |
It has been a long time since I have posted on here. But, I think the issue regarding ownership is the most important issue since the days of Petty. IF, the Trust were told by a shareholder or shareholders that they would sell, the Trust must try and raise the money given the importance of a 25% stake. However, I see the following problems:
1. The value of shares is only going to increase whilst we are where we are, especially in light of the new TV deal. I wouldn't be surprised if existing shareholders have increased their valuation.
2. The period of time to raise the money is likely to be extensive.
3. Any shareholders initially willing to sell are likely to come under huge pressure not to from fellow shareholders.
What puzzles me in all this is that on the face of it all shareholders except the Trust were willing to sell some shares. There appears to be no concern about their legacy or long term future of the club. If it IS a time issue, they could recruit a Chief Executive to run the show. I'm afraid from the outside looking in, it appears that they were only interested in personal profit regarding the American sale. |
Katzen wanted out apparently, he approached the Yanks initially. That's over 20% of what they wanted. |  |
| |
| A Pipe Dream... on 21:53 - Feb 24 with 1533 views | monmouth |
I'm not sure that we should see the 25% as a cure for all diseases (I'm not saying anybody is mind, but simple numerical targets do tend to totally take over in my experience - that is their positive power). The company law folk can help maybe. It stops future dilution I think so is very much a critical milestone but offers no protection against other catastrophic actions? eg borrowing limits, Tan type colour/name crazies. Remember must always anticipate two or three sell-ons down the line. |  |
| |
| A Pipe Dream... on 00:11 - Feb 25 with 1490 views | Nookiejack |
| A Pipe Dream... on 21:53 - Feb 24 by monmouth |
I'm not sure that we should see the 25% as a cure for all diseases (I'm not saying anybody is mind, but simple numerical targets do tend to totally take over in my experience - that is their positive power). The company law folk can help maybe. It stops future dilution I think so is very much a critical milestone but offers no protection against other catastrophic actions? eg borrowing limits, Tan type colour/name crazies. Remember must always anticipate two or three sell-ons down the line. |
I think under FFP - you can only borrow to invest to improve your stadium and your academy. Also you can only increase your wage bill by £4m per season and not have cumulative losses more than £15m over three seasons. So FFP to an extent with 25% gives you a certain level of protection.
What certain commentators though have said that FFP does not stop is leveraged finance takeovers - such as the Glazers did with Man U - where the assets of the club were essentially mortgaged (securitised) to raise the cash for the Glazers to buy existing shareholders out.
I would be interested if anyone out there who is an expert on FFP - has a view on whether clubs can or cannot effect leveraged buyouts - going forward. As I see this is something the Trust should resist very strongly if they are allowed to do it under FFP.
I don't see how they can if you are only allowed to go into debt to invest in stadium and academy.
(Londonlisa2001 are you out there - can you comment on this?) | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 17:34 - Feb 25 with 1439 views | londonlisa2001 |
| A Pipe Dream... on 00:11 - Feb 25 by Nookiejack |
I think under FFP - you can only borrow to invest to improve your stadium and your academy. Also you can only increase your wage bill by £4m per season and not have cumulative losses more than £15m over three seasons. So FFP to an extent with 25% gives you a certain level of protection.
What certain commentators though have said that FFP does not stop is leveraged finance takeovers - such as the Glazers did with Man U - where the assets of the club were essentially mortgaged (securitised) to raise the cash for the Glazers to buy existing shareholders out.
I would be interested if anyone out there who is an expert on FFP - has a view on whether clubs can or cannot effect leveraged buyouts - going forward. As I see this is something the Trust should resist very strongly if they are allowed to do it under FFP.
I don't see how they can if you are only allowed to go into debt to invest in stadium and academy.
(Londonlisa2001 are you out there - can you comment on this?) |
sorry - I only just noticed this question.
I am no expert (not even slightly) on this, but my understanding is that the whole notion of FFP is based on losses over a period of time.
So if a club is bankrolled via a leveraged buy out, then as long as it can cover its interest payments from income (together with all other payments on salaries, players, staff etc etc) then it doesn't matter.
The issue on stadium / academy improvements, is that money spent on those things is taken out of the calculation (so is 'free' under FFP rules). Spending on other things is not. So I believe, although am not certain, this leads to interest payments arising because of spending on stadia etc is similarly ignored whereas interest payments arising for other reasons has to be taken into account.
One of the big impacts of FFP in my view will be on length of player contracts (this hasn't really been touched on, but I notice as increasing number of 5 year contracts flying out of the 'big clubs').
My understanding is that the player cost is in two parts - the salary element (which is a deduction from income for FFP) and an amortised cost of the player (eg. buy a player for £12m, 3 year contract FFP cost is salary plus £4m per year, 4 year contract FFP cost would be salary plus £3m per year). FFP is helped therefore, by having the longest possible time to 'spread' that cost. So you can get a 'better' squad under the rules if you give them all long contracts? | | | |
| A Pipe Dream... on 18:08 - Feb 25 with 1427 views | Nookiejack |
| A Pipe Dream... on 17:34 - Feb 25 by londonlisa2001 |
sorry - I only just noticed this question.
I am no expert (not even slightly) on this, but my understanding is that the whole notion of FFP is based on losses over a period of time.
So if a club is bankrolled via a leveraged buy out, then as long as it can cover its interest payments from income (together with all other payments on salaries, players, staff etc etc) then it doesn't matter.
The issue on stadium / academy improvements, is that money spent on those things is taken out of the calculation (so is 'free' under FFP rules). Spending on other things is not. So I believe, although am not certain, this leads to interest payments arising because of spending on stadia etc is similarly ignored whereas interest payments arising for other reasons has to be taken into account.
One of the big impacts of FFP in my view will be on length of player contracts (this hasn't really been touched on, but I notice as increasing number of 5 year contracts flying out of the 'big clubs').
My understanding is that the player cost is in two parts - the salary element (which is a deduction from income for FFP) and an amortised cost of the player (eg. buy a player for £12m, 3 year contract FFP cost is salary plus £4m per year, 4 year contract FFP cost would be salary plus £3m per year). FFP is helped therefore, by having the longest possible time to 'spread' that cost. So you can get a 'better' squad under the rules if you give them all long contracts? |
Thats very interesting as if Leveraged buyouts are allowed under FFP - I think the Trust needs to take a look at this area very carefully as think they are very risky - even though the Trust may achieve 25% stake.
For example with our current equity structure we have no debt to service and can only pay dividends when we have made distributable profits. Whereas with leveraged finance model - the club would have to repay the loan notes and respective interest - otherwise debt holder could enforce a debt for equity swap and take the Trust's 21.1% stake off the Trusts' hands.
The Trust I note from Friday's statement is asking for some clause to be inserted - in a new to be agreed Shareholders Agreement - to protect excessive debt structures being foisted on the club. This seems very sensible.
Really interesting also your observation about the trend in increasing the length of player contracts - as looks to be beneficial under FFP. I suppose downside of this is you could end up with a number of 'duff' players that you have given extended contracts to - unless there is an accounting way of getting around this? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
