| American Investors 22:18 - Oct 28 with 11895 views | Jock_The_Jack |
Back in town this weekend apparently!? |  | | |  |
| American Investors on 20:25 - Oct 29 with 2136 views | waynekerr55 |
| American Investors on 20:22 - Oct 29 by londonlisa2001 |
I didn't look at wikiinvestor or whatever it is, so can't possibly comment !!
But yes - you're right of course. Any money taken from the club to reward shareholders is obviously bad to some degree. The 'usual' reason for dividends - to attract investors, widen the investment base and therefore increase access to funds that a company has don't really apply since it is a completely illiquid stock.
The ones that work for the club also get handsomely paid (and bonused). To reward them for the initial risk - that is fair enough, although they have now been rewarded many many times over of course.
But in the present situation, no dividend can be said to be 'good' (as you say - possibly for the Trust, although the Trust can't do much with it). From a club point of view, what's good is keeping the money and investing in infrastructure / players.
I've said before, and at the risk of attracting posters that have their head firmly up the backside of some involved, there comes a point at which keeping us in the PL can't be said to be indicative of great performance unless something starts to move on the stadium. |
Now now, Lisa.
You must toe the party line. This club is run "by fans, for fans". They'd never sell to an assett stripping schmuck, would they? |  |
| |
| American Investors on 20:33 - Oct 29 with 2117 views | londonlisa2001 |
| American Investors on 20:25 - Oct 29 by waynekerr55 |
Now now, Lisa.
You must toe the party line. This club is run "by fans, for fans". They'd never sell to an assett stripping schmuck, would they? |
I genuinely hope they wouldn't (although it looked like they may well do fairly recently).
But even if they don't, the ones they sell to might. |  | | |
| American Investors on 22:54 - Oct 29 with 2011 views | dgt73 |
| American Investors on 20:25 - Oct 29 by waynekerr55 |
Now now, Lisa.
You must toe the party line. This club is run "by fans, for fans". They'd never sell to an assett stripping schmuck, would they? |
Why would anyone invest in the Swans to asset strip - absolute nonsense. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 00:22 - Oct 30 with 1938 views | Davillin |
| American Investors on 15:16 - Oct 29 by Uxbridge |
We have different interpretations of not bad. Not as bad maybe ... |
Sometimes too short a statement can be misinterpreted. "Not bad" is not the same as "good." A more navel-gazing expresson, instead of "not bad," might have been "not inherently bad."
I'd accept "not as bad," although that was not exactly what I meant.
To expand a bit, asset-stripping, by definition, means leaving the club to one degree or another worthless. Paying a dividend normally does not because that would be killing the goose to get the golden egg.
Of course, selling a majority of shares [even in two installments of 30%] would put the club at serious risk, given the reputation of the Americans said to be interested.
I don't want an argument, so I'll leave it at that. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 07:49 - Oct 30 with 1866 views | Phil_S |
Is the use of the word investors accurate this time? |  | | |
| American Investors on 07:51 - Oct 30 with 1862 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 07:49 - Oct 30 by Phil_S |
Is the use of the word investors accurate this time? |
Was it ever? |  |
| |
| American Investors on 07:53 - Oct 30 with 1858 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 00:22 - Oct 30 by Davillin |
Sometimes too short a statement can be misinterpreted. "Not bad" is not the same as "good." A more navel-gazing expresson, instead of "not bad," might have been "not inherently bad."
I'd accept "not as bad," although that was not exactly what I meant.
To expand a bit, asset-stripping, by definition, means leaving the club to one degree or another worthless. Paying a dividend normally does not because that would be killing the goose to get the golden egg.
Of course, selling a majority of shares [even in two installments of 30%] would put the club at serious risk, given the reputation of the Americans said to be interested.
I don't want an argument, so I'll leave it at that. |
My original comment still stands. We clearly have different interpretations of not bad. | |
| |
| American Investors on 07:54 - Oct 30 with 1854 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 07:51 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
Was it ever? |
Certainly not With the last group to come looking | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| American Investors on 08:04 - Oct 30 with 1824 views | Uxbridge |
That seems to contradict something said at the recent forum  | |
| |
| American Investors on 08:07 - Oct 30 with 1821 views | Devz00 |
| American Investors on 11:43 - Oct 29 by Darran |
You haven't got time to be wasting on here.  |
Ha! All done mun. Emailed you. |  |
| Genetically, paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact. |
| |
| American Investors on 08:29 - Oct 30 with 1800 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 08:04 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
That seems to contradict something said at the recent forum |
I know, far be it from me to suggest which one people should believe though... | | | |
| American Investors on 08:49 - Oct 30 with 1787 views | perchrockjack |
Contentious subject.
I'm out.
Disagreements amongst fans and smart ones at That.
Us clueless ones just have hope | |
| |
| American Investors on 09:28 - Oct 30 with 1747 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 08:49 - Oct 30 by perchrockjack |
Contentious subject.
I'm out.
Disagreements amongst fans and smart ones at That.
Us clueless ones just have hope |
This is one of the more healthy subjects to debate on and one that everyone should partake in
More importantly it serves as a reminder as to why we have a Trust in Swansea and a very good (the most important) reason why people should join
Sadly for some (not aimed at the people in this thread) they let personal grudges go ahead of the organisation | | | |
| American Investors on 09:30 - Oct 30 with 1745 views | waynekerr55 |
| American Investors on 22:54 - Oct 29 by dgt73 |
Why would anyone invest in the Swans to asset strip - absolute nonsense. |
Uhhh...
TV deal and Baseball spring to mind?
Lay off the crystal meth pal 😜 | |
| |
| American Investors on 09:36 - Oct 30 with 1657 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 09:30 - Oct 30 by waynekerr55 |
Uhhh...
TV deal and Baseball spring to mind?
Lay off the crystal meth pal 😜 |
Party buys football club with £100m income stream (rising to £150m? next year). Party diverts money to themselves rather than the benefit of the club.
Now, not all potential owners are a Tony Petty. However my default position is that I'd take some convincing that anyone coming in would act for the long-term benefit of the football club rather than themselves. | |
| |
| American Investors on 09:40 - Oct 30 with 1654 views | ItchySphincter |
I don't necessarily subscribe to the dividend is bad theory. Business is largely speculation and risk and whatever we think about it the club is a business and the shareholders are the owners, including the trust. If there hadn't been turnaround in fortunes a decade or so ago then those initially investors might have lost everything. I seem to recall the directors were unpaid, maybe until we reached the Championship and thereafter the pay was fairly modest considering the position so dividends - obviously only paid from profit after tax - are quite a good way of keep salaries down. I can't see the trust annual income being too great from subscriptions alone?
The biggest mistake we made unfortunately, and this isn't meant to be a criticism, is not getting the trust over the 25% hurdle and I can't honestly see how we're ever going to do it unfortunately. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 09:42 - Oct 30 with 1648 views | Phil_S |
| American Investors on 09:40 - Oct 30 by ItchySphincter |
I don't necessarily subscribe to the dividend is bad theory. Business is largely speculation and risk and whatever we think about it the club is a business and the shareholders are the owners, including the trust. If there hadn't been turnaround in fortunes a decade or so ago then those initially investors might have lost everything. I seem to recall the directors were unpaid, maybe until we reached the Championship and thereafter the pay was fairly modest considering the position so dividends - obviously only paid from profit after tax - are quite a good way of keep salaries down. I can't see the trust annual income being too great from subscriptions alone?
The biggest mistake we made unfortunately, and this isn't meant to be a criticism, is not getting the trust over the 25% hurdle and I can't honestly see how we're ever going to do it unfortunately. |
It would be great to be over that threshold but it's clear that there is no appetite amongst the other shareholders for that to be the case | | | |
| American Investors on 09:45 - Oct 30 with 1639 views | johnlangy |
| American Investors on 09:36 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
Party buys football club with £100m income stream (rising to £150m? next year). Party diverts money to themselves rather than the benefit of the club.
Now, not all potential owners are a Tony Petty. However my default position is that I'd take some convincing that anyone coming in would act for the long-term benefit of the football club rather than themselves. |
About the only thing that would convince me would be the buyers/investors signing a legally binding contract analyzed line by line by Financial Advisors employed by the TRUST, that contract containing an agreement that if, or when, the new owners sell on they could only sell to people who would sign an identical contract to the first one. | | | |
| American Investors on 09:45 - Oct 30 with 1639 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 09:40 - Oct 30 by ItchySphincter |
I don't necessarily subscribe to the dividend is bad theory. Business is largely speculation and risk and whatever we think about it the club is a business and the shareholders are the owners, including the trust. If there hadn't been turnaround in fortunes a decade or so ago then those initially investors might have lost everything. I seem to recall the directors were unpaid, maybe until we reached the Championship and thereafter the pay was fairly modest considering the position so dividends - obviously only paid from profit after tax - are quite a good way of keep salaries down. I can't see the trust annual income being too great from subscriptions alone?
The biggest mistake we made unfortunately, and this isn't meant to be a criticism, is not getting the trust over the 25% hurdle and I can't honestly see how we're ever going to do it unfortunately. |
Should note that we're in a position now where many shareholders are being paid dividends and being remunerated as directors. Given the published remuneration I'm not sure that the dividend payments are keeping salaries down in any way.
The 25% threshold is an important target I agree. Sadly there's no will amongst the other shareholders to assist with that, as was also evident at the recent forum. | |
| |
| American Investors on 09:51 - Oct 30 with 1632 views | ItchySphincter |
| American Investors on 09:45 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
Should note that we're in a position now where many shareholders are being paid dividends and being remunerated as directors. Given the published remuneration I'm not sure that the dividend payments are keeping salaries down in any way.
The 25% threshold is an important target I agree. Sadly there's no will amongst the other shareholders to assist with that, as was also evident at the recent forum. |
Being completely honest I don't know what the recent dividend awards have amounted too, but yes, if remuneration is adequate and competitive then dividend awards should be shelved until cap ex targets are met re club improvements/infrastructure. | |
| |
| American Investors on 10:02 - Oct 30 with 1608 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 09:51 - Oct 30 by ItchySphincter |
Being completely honest I don't know what the recent dividend awards have amounted too, but yes, if remuneration is adequate and competitive then dividend awards should be shelved until cap ex targets are met re club improvements/infrastructure. |
There have been four £1m payments (for each PL season). To be honest I wasn't in favour of any of them, however could understand the first one or even two.
Your last sentence is pretty much why I've been very much against the recent ones. Cash is a lot tighter down the Liberty than people believe, and maybe even the club present. The idea that the Swans are awash with cash given all the work done at Landore, Fairwood, the stadium and the squad is completely misleading. £2-4m isn't the reason why expansion hasn't happened, but it's a fair chunk of change towards it. | |
| |
| American Investors on 10:09 - Oct 30 with 1596 views | airedale |
| American Investors on 13:10 - Oct 29 by Highjack |
There were a load of Americans in vests taking selfies by rossis. Perhaps that's what's causing the confusion. |
Did they have knotted handkerchiefs on their heads as well HJ? |  | | |
| American Investors on 10:10 - Oct 30 with 1596 views | hammy |
| American Investors on 09:45 - Oct 30 by Uxbridge |
Should note that we're in a position now where many shareholders are being paid dividends and being remunerated as directors. Given the published remuneration I'm not sure that the dividend payments are keeping salaries down in any way.
The 25% threshold is an important target I agree. Sadly there's no will amongst the other shareholders to assist with that, as was also evident at the recent forum. |
The ownership / shareholding in the club is going to become an ever-increasing point of discussion over the next few years, regardless of the latest set of "American investors". Since the majority of shares are held by a handful of individuals then the future ownership of the club is very much in their hands. No doubt they will want to cash out at some point or maybe pass on the shareholding to family members. How they manage their shareholding will have a huge bearing on the future management of the club. Given that the individuals have a long history with the club then it would seem that working with them is the way to secure a community based management of the club longer term.
But with more and more money being ploughed into PL football it's going to be very difficult to keep the wolves from the door ...this really is unchartered territory for a so-called small club. |  |
| |
| American Investors on 10:15 - Oct 30 with 1588 views | Uxbridge |
| American Investors on 10:10 - Oct 30 by hammy |
The ownership / shareholding in the club is going to become an ever-increasing point of discussion over the next few years, regardless of the latest set of "American investors". Since the majority of shares are held by a handful of individuals then the future ownership of the club is very much in their hands. No doubt they will want to cash out at some point or maybe pass on the shareholding to family members. How they manage their shareholding will have a huge bearing on the future management of the club. Given that the individuals have a long history with the club then it would seem that working with them is the way to secure a community based management of the club longer term.
But with more and more money being ploughed into PL football it's going to be very difficult to keep the wolves from the door ...this really is unchartered territory for a so-called small club. |
Absolutely. What's important to me is that we have the best possible people owning and running the club. I could well envisage a scenario where the current shareholders can't give the club the proper focus and pass it on to family members etc, and that may not be in the best interests of the club. I'm not against new blood per se, more of case of making sure people with the right intentions are installed. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
