| Building Bridges on 07:25 - Feb 16 with 1819 views | NOTRAC |
Skippy Jack is absolutely right.Who in their right mind is going to buy shares that give no say in decision making, are unlikely to receive income, and would not need to be purchased in a future takeover situation.Add to that the threat of dilution,and the chances of them now being sold for any real value is virtually nil.The Trust played into the hands of the other shareholders when they maintained in public that their shares were not for sale.
The only hope is for a compensation payment as a result of legal action, but this is most certainly not guaranteed. |  |
|  |
| Building Bridges on 08:22 - Feb 16 with 1793 views | QJumpingJack |
Good to see progress being made.
In relation to the purchase of shares and the Trust being kept in the dark, were minutes taken at the board meetings over the last 12/18 months. Surely the American interest would have been discussed/noted? | | | |
| Building Bridges on 09:19 - Feb 16 with 1753 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 07:25 - Feb 16 by NOTRAC |
Skippy Jack is absolutely right.Who in their right mind is going to buy shares that give no say in decision making, are unlikely to receive income, and would not need to be purchased in a future takeover situation.Add to that the threat of dilution,and the chances of them now being sold for any real value is virtually nil.The Trust played into the hands of the other shareholders when they maintained in public that their shares were not for sale.
The only hope is for a compensation payment as a result of legal action, but this is most certainly not guaranteed. |
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. I know we live in an era of alt-truth but how on earth does a 21% stake in an asset valued at £110m last summer become worth "virtually nil". Say the Americans want to sell in the future, just a hunch like, and the club was valued at that time, for instance, at £200m. Would they receive more for their 68% or, say, 78%?
Just like when you stated on https://thejack.army/threads/the-trust-knew-all-along-about-the-sellout.13113/pa that the Trust could be diluted to nothing through a share issue. That was wrong too. Shares need to be issued at an appropriate value for the company not just whatever you choose to screw over a minority shareholder. That way unfair prejudice lies.
I'm sorry, but just like the Trust's views needs challenging, so do inaccurate statements that constantly get repeated by some. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 10:29 - Feb 16 with 1709 views | Darran |
| Building Bridges on 16:55 - Feb 15 by Darran |
The clog is still having perks though like taking all his crew on a tour of the stadium every time he's brings them over. |
Yep and after just reading a post on Facebook from someone working at the Liberty it's quite obvious that the Trust haven't gone far enough with JVZ because he's still taking the piss. |  |
| |
| Building Bridges on 11:37 - Feb 16 with 1680 views | siralan |
| Building Bridges on 09:19 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. I know we live in an era of alt-truth but how on earth does a 21% stake in an asset valued at £110m last summer become worth "virtually nil". Say the Americans want to sell in the future, just a hunch like, and the club was valued at that time, for instance, at £200m. Would they receive more for their 68% or, say, 78%?
Just like when you stated on https://thejack.army/threads/the-trust-knew-all-along-about-the-sellout.13113/pa that the Trust could be diluted to nothing through a share issue. That was wrong too. Shares need to be issued at an appropriate value for the company not just whatever you choose to screw over a minority shareholder. That way unfair prejudice lies.
I'm sorry, but just like the Trust's views needs challenging, so do inaccurate statements that constantly get repeated by some. |
If the Americans decided to sell the 78% and the buyer knew they had complete power and control of the club without the trusts 21% then no offer would be made for them by them or anyone else,so on paper they have value but in the real world they do not. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 11:40 - Feb 16 with 1678 views | Darran |
Surely once the dilution of shares hapoens the Trusts shares will be worth less anyway even if they're worth something now. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 11:46 - Feb 16 with 1674 views | NOTRAC |
Uxbridge, yes I was wrong in saying that a share dilution as illustrated would reduce our value to nil.,it would be about 14%.
But you are also wrong in suggesting that the trusts shares are worth 22% of the value of the company.They can only be worth what someone is prepared to pay for them.Because they represent a minority interest they are not really needed by any purchaser who like the Americans want to own the club.The Americans have all the power they need by owning 70%. If anyone in the future wanted to own Swansea City F.C and the value of the club was £200m, why would they pay more than £140m( 70% of the value). To achieve that they would only need to purchase the shares presently owned by the American companies.That is why the Americans did not need to purchase the Trusts shares to get full control, and that is why the Trusts shares are now almost unsaleable and therefore almost worthless. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 11:54 - Feb 16 with 1662 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 11:37 - Feb 16 by siralan |
If the Americans decided to sell the 78% and the buyer knew they had complete power and control of the club without the trusts 21% then no offer would be made for them by them or anyone else,so on paper they have value but in the real world they do not. |
No, sorry, but you're wrong. Hell I could point to a few very minor shareholders in the last round who by this logic wouldn't have received a bean. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Building Bridges on 11:55 - Feb 16 with 1657 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 11:46 - Feb 16 by NOTRAC |
Uxbridge, yes I was wrong in saying that a share dilution as illustrated would reduce our value to nil.,it would be about 14%.
But you are also wrong in suggesting that the trusts shares are worth 22% of the value of the company.They can only be worth what someone is prepared to pay for them.Because they represent a minority interest they are not really needed by any purchaser who like the Americans want to own the club.The Americans have all the power they need by owning 70%. If anyone in the future wanted to own Swansea City F.C and the value of the club was £200m, why would they pay more than £140m( 70% of the value). To achieve that they would only need to purchase the shares presently owned by the American companies.That is why the Americans did not need to purchase the Trusts shares to get full control, and that is why the Trusts shares are now almost unsaleable and therefore almost worthless. |
How do you get to this 14%? I'd like to see the sums for that.
You're confusing control with equity. You are pretty much stating that equity has no value, which I find extraordinary. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 11:58 - Feb 16 with 1654 views | NOTRAC |
Uxbridge, if you are correct, why didn't the Americans see the need of buying the Trusts shares? | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:02 - Feb 16 with 1647 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 11:40 - Feb 16 by Darran |
Surely once the dilution of shares hapoens the Trusts shares will be worth less anyway even if they're worth something now. |
Well, no, not really.
Say the club wanted to raise £20m, for example (I'm plucking that out of the air). There are currently 950,000 shares in SCFC. They can't just issue 20,000,000 shares for £1 each, complely diluting the original shareholding, as the club is worth considerably more than ~£21m. Shares would need to be issued a lot closer to £110 a share which is the recent market value of the club (indeed some would argue would need to be higher). The pricing itself would be interesting, and the legalities around that.
Could the Trust raise the £4.2m required to maintain its stake? Maybe, maybe not. However, if not, the end result would be a reduced stake (just less than 18%) in a bigger asset (the club + £20m in the bank) at worst. Not desirable in one way (Trust stake reduces) however if it's for the benefit of the club, can the Trust argue against it? | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:10 - Feb 16 with 1632 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 11:58 - Feb 16 by NOTRAC |
Uxbridge, if you are correct, why didn't the Americans see the need of buying the Trusts shares? |
Firstly, that's an entirely separate question and bears absolutely no relevance to the concept of valuing the Trust's shares and secondly I think we need to look back at the events from late 2015 to April 2016, when the Trust were deliberately excluded from discussions until the share purchase was so far down the track as to exclude the Trust.
There are probably many factors why the Americans didn't buy 100% of the club, or at least seek to. Maybe they didn't have the funds. Maybe they wanted to hedge their bets in case things go awry. As you rightly say, they have majority control now so it's not as if it has stopped their plans in any regard. However, the shares are assets, and when the time comes when they'll look to sell, a greater shareholding will result in a greater take. That's not to say that the level of control doesn't play a factor in valuing a shareholding, but for people to argue that lack of control renders the Trust shareholding worthless is just plain wrong. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:14 - Feb 16 with 1630 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Building Bridges on 11:55 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
How do you get to this 14%? I'd like to see the sums for that.
You're confusing control with equity. You are pretty much stating that equity has no value, which I find extraordinary. |
The equity does indeed have value. The issue, Ux, is that it has no liquidity, which to be frank amounts to the same thing.
I have said on a few occasions now that it's the new structure that causes the Trust the problem for the future (including rights that have been given to all except the Trust).
That is what has been a potential unfair prejudice, as it means that the shares in Swansea 2002 Ltd (or whatever it's called) will never again need to be sold in order to pass ownership of the club. And as that's where the Trust's shares sit, they could sit there forever and not be sold and it won't make a blind bit of difference as far as control of the club is concerned. The only impact of those shares will be to receive 21% of dividends. And the trust won't be able to do anything with that money. And the US shareholders will put in money for equity (at value, they are not stupid), and that 21% will reduce and reduce. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 12:14 - Feb 16 with 1628 views | swancity |
| Building Bridges on 12:10 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
Firstly, that's an entirely separate question and bears absolutely no relevance to the concept of valuing the Trust's shares and secondly I think we need to look back at the events from late 2015 to April 2016, when the Trust were deliberately excluded from discussions until the share purchase was so far down the track as to exclude the Trust.
There are probably many factors why the Americans didn't buy 100% of the club, or at least seek to. Maybe they didn't have the funds. Maybe they wanted to hedge their bets in case things go awry. As you rightly say, they have majority control now so it's not as if it has stopped their plans in any regard. However, the shares are assets, and when the time comes when they'll look to sell, a greater shareholding will result in a greater take. That's not to say that the level of control doesn't play a factor in valuing a shareholding, but for people to argue that lack of control renders the Trust shareholding worthless is just plain wrong. |
Well as the Trust will have parted with close on £30000 in legal costs I would like to assume that the question of shares and their current value or not as the case may be is something that's been included. Although may be not judging by your uncertain attempts to answer questions on the subject. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Building Bridges on 12:24 - Feb 16 with 1606 views | Darran |
| Building Bridges on 12:14 - Feb 16 by londonlisa2001 |
The equity does indeed have value. The issue, Ux, is that it has no liquidity, which to be frank amounts to the same thing.
I have said on a few occasions now that it's the new structure that causes the Trust the problem for the future (including rights that have been given to all except the Trust).
That is what has been a potential unfair prejudice, as it means that the shares in Swansea 2002 Ltd (or whatever it's called) will never again need to be sold in order to pass ownership of the club. And as that's where the Trust's shares sit, they could sit there forever and not be sold and it won't make a blind bit of difference as far as control of the club is concerned. The only impact of those shares will be to receive 21% of dividends. And the trust won't be able to do anything with that money. And the US shareholders will put in money for equity (at value, they are not stupid), and that 21% will reduce and reduce. |
Exactly Lisa they're worthless in regards nobody needs to buy them if they want control of the club. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 13:01 - Feb 16 with 1563 views | NOTRAC |
The saddest part about the whole episode of the takeover was that there was undoubtedly a conspiracy by all the other shareholders to keep the Trust from partaking in the sale..
This in essence had two possible effects.It enabled the sale to progress without publicity and awkward questions being asked, and it also meant that in reality the other shareholders had the Trusts share of the purchase price to add to their own share proceeds.
It is for this reason that Jenkins and his cronies should never be forgiven, and any bridges that the Trust now builds should be made with the utmost care. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 13:07 - Feb 16 with 1551 views | Darran |
| Building Bridges on 13:01 - Feb 16 by NOTRAC |
The saddest part about the whole episode of the takeover was that there was undoubtedly a conspiracy by all the other shareholders to keep the Trust from partaking in the sale..
This in essence had two possible effects.It enabled the sale to progress without publicity and awkward questions being asked, and it also meant that in reality the other shareholders had the Trusts share of the purchase price to add to their own share proceeds.
It is for this reason that Jenkins and his cronies should never be forgiven, and any bridges that the Trust now builds should be made with the utmost care. |
And if legal action takes place and people are found guilty of acting illegally to trouser millions of pounds they should be banned from being directors of any company. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 13:43 - Feb 16 with 1522 views | siralan |
| Building Bridges on 11:54 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
No, sorry, but you're wrong. Hell I could point to a few very minor shareholders in the last round who by this logic wouldn't have received a bean. |
Go on then,and tell us what % they sold.
Was it out of the goodness of the Yanks hearts they bought them?
I do not see them making any offer for the trusts shares,why is that?
I'll tell you its because they know they are in the real world worthless whilst they hold the vast majority of the rest of the shares. [Post edited 16 Feb 2017 13:47]
| | | |
| Building Bridges on 15:06 - Feb 16 with 1445 views | Nookiejack |
| Building Bridges on 21:05 - Feb 15 by Uxbridge |
No, but if they are at anything other than market value we get into unfair prejudice territory.
There are only two ways money is coming into the club .. debt or equity. If it's in the interests of the club, and priced so as not to unfairly prejudice one or other party, can the Trust be against somethign to benefit the club? |
What would be helpful if you explained if Chineses investors or the like suddenly came to the Trust with an offer for 21% of Trust's shares?
What would happen under the new articles?
If Trust can't sell without Yanks approval - then why would a 3rd party ever conduct due diligence on the club incurring costs to buy the Trusts shares - knowing the Yanks could buy the shares or block the sale.
This would mean it reduces the potential buyers of the Trusts shares hence the value of them is reduced. | | | |
| Building Bridges on 15:12 - Feb 16 with 1439 views | Private_Partz |
| Building Bridges on 13:07 - Feb 16 by Darran |
And if legal action takes place and people are found guilty of acting illegally to trouser millions of pounds they should be banned from being directors of any company. |
This is a big point. If at the end of the season it does go legal and the original shareholder agreement is found to be valid what happens then. ? There is criminal action punishable by fines but what happens to the millions trousered from the yanks?
Also the Trust would surely have a claim for massive compensation. If Huw lost the vast majority of his fortune as a result it would take him at least 7 years to recoup his losses via his annual salary
Or am I talking complete bollo which is extremely likely. Otherwise. If I was Huw I would keep my lolly in a high interest account untouched until this lot blows over. ... |  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
| Building Bridges on 15:21 - Feb 16 with 1426 views | Loyal |
| Building Bridges on 11:55 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
How do you get to this 14%? I'd like to see the sums for that.
You're confusing control with equity. You are pretty much stating that equity has no value, which I find extraordinary. |
Third request.
So in with the legal advice you had what indication are there of criminality ? |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Building Bridges on 15:57 - Feb 16 with 1398 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 15:21 - Feb 16 by Loyal |
Third request.
So in with the legal advice you had what indication are there of criminality ? |
I answered that on Page 1 of this very thread. | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 15:59 - Feb 16 with 1393 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 13:43 - Feb 16 by siralan |
Go on then,and tell us what % they sold.
Was it out of the goodness of the Yanks hearts they bought them?
I do not see them making any offer for the trusts shares,why is that?
I'll tell you its because they know they are in the real world worthless whilst they hold the vast majority of the rest of the shares. [Post edited 16 Feb 2017 13:47]
|
Morgan 5%, Jenkins 5%, Dineen 1%, Katzen 1% | |
| |
| Building Bridges on 16:02 - Feb 16 with 1383 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Building Bridges on 15:59 - Feb 16 by Uxbridge |
Morgan 5%, Jenkins 5%, Dineen 1%, Katzen 1% |
They were retained, not sold Ux.
And those are the shares which my post referred to... | | | |
| Building Bridges on 16:10 - Feb 16 with 1371 views | Uxbridge |
| Building Bridges on 16:02 - Feb 16 by londonlisa2001 |
They were retained, not sold Ux.
And those are the shares which my post referred to... |
Quite right, I misread. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
