| No offers for Will Evans at Newport 16:51 - Feb 2 with 2456 views | KeithHaynes |
From anyone, just as we reported initial, tentative discussions in early January.
I would have thought he would have fitted in well on the wing 😉 |  |
| |  |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 11:37 - Feb 5 with 567 views | RichardO |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 21:00 - Feb 3 by vetchonian |
yes the man who was so up front and honest when selling our club to the current owners behind the majority shareholder's back he was so open and transparent a trustworthy soul |
The majority share holder or a major shareholder who had become troublesome in affecting the sale of the club.
Makes you think if there had been a better option to sell to which was thwarted Ancient history now for me what worrys me is the fact than there seems many more benefactors to satisfy now to the detriment of the club. Does the trusts investment earn them anything and how the other investors make money. |  | | |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 12:21 - Feb 5 with 535 views | Whiterockin |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 11:37 - Feb 5 by RichardO |
The majority share holder or a major shareholder who had become troublesome in affecting the sale of the club.
Makes you think if there had been a better option to sell to which was thwarted Ancient history now for me what worrys me is the fact than there seems many more benefactors to satisfy now to the detriment of the club. Does the trusts investment earn them anything and how the other investors make money. |
The bait has been cast. |  | | |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 13:48 - Feb 5 with 486 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 12:21 - Feb 5 by Whiterockin |
The bait has been cast. |
Bait taken. At one time Swansea fans desperately wanted investment. The old board and the Trust did a single investment in 2002 and nothing since. The magical "failed roofer" did such a sensational job for the other investors (such at the Trust) that there was not need for investment. He did a sensational job and the old Trust disliked him. That is why do not rate them at all.
Around 2015 HJ highlighted that the club could not continue as normal and was forced to sell Shelvey to pick up £15m. New investors were required. The "awkward squad" the Trust did not want investment as they had no money. Their strategy of 'do nothing' which had served them well up to then was a disaster after 2015. They had to act but did not. Wrexham found it easy at first but it gets harder and harder up the leagues.
Now the club has exclusively US new investment (not matched by the locals) the "investors" suddenly become "beneficiaries". (The word "benefactors" was used incorrectly).
Beneficiaries - receivers of benefit
Benefactors - givers of benefit.
The US people were told to invest did invest and are now "beneficiaries". Its easy to moan and complain when in 'benefit land'.
Who are the unknown beneficiaries in the LLC? - they do not exist. I do not care who they are, all have lost money in the Welsh adventure. Look at Blackburn , Boro, Cardiff Derby Sheff. Wed, Not many 'beneficiaries' there.
Shareholders usually make return with dividends .The old board and the Trsut saw the first and last dividend payment around 2014. The Trust took in £800k. They have done nothing with it. They are not investors. I am sure then can invest if they do research.
[Post edited 5 Feb 14:01]
|  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 18:12 - Feb 5 with 361 views | RichardO |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 13:48 - Feb 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Bait taken. At one time Swansea fans desperately wanted investment. The old board and the Trust did a single investment in 2002 and nothing since. The magical "failed roofer" did such a sensational job for the other investors (such at the Trust) that there was not need for investment. He did a sensational job and the old Trust disliked him. That is why do not rate them at all.
Around 2015 HJ highlighted that the club could not continue as normal and was forced to sell Shelvey to pick up £15m. New investors were required. The "awkward squad" the Trust did not want investment as they had no money. Their strategy of 'do nothing' which had served them well up to then was a disaster after 2015. They had to act but did not. Wrexham found it easy at first but it gets harder and harder up the leagues.
Now the club has exclusively US new investment (not matched by the locals) the "investors" suddenly become "beneficiaries". (The word "benefactors" was used incorrectly).
Beneficiaries - receivers of benefit
Benefactors - givers of benefit.
The US people were told to invest did invest and are now "beneficiaries". Its easy to moan and complain when in 'benefit land'.
Who are the unknown beneficiaries in the LLC? - they do not exist. I do not care who they are, all have lost money in the Welsh adventure. Look at Blackburn , Boro, Cardiff Derby Sheff. Wed, Not many 'beneficiaries' there.
Shareholders usually make return with dividends .The old board and the Trsut saw the first and last dividend payment around 2014. The Trust took in £800k. They have done nothing with it. They are not investors. I am sure then can invest if they do research.
[Post edited 5 Feb 14:01]
|
My bad for the incorrect use of the term benefactors when I should have used beneficiaries but I'm sure people understood what was being suggested or being asked.
No bait intended just asking questions even if not correctly put.
Did any of the investors original money actually go into the running of the club or just the buying out of the original owners.
What input do the investors have in the running of the club or is the club now run by an investment firm who the investors pay for their services while also taking a fee for organising and running the club. Is this where Swansea LLC comes into play.
Were the additional funds aqquired (5 million?) put in by someone who thought their investment could change the trajectory from a relatively low value of the club with the safe guard of the interest payments or shares maintains his money but dilutes everybody else's, not sure how the cover note works.
Additional investment again with a safe guard of being paid a chairman's wage.
Has the mismanagement of the club led to the failure of services on and off the pitch while some have benefitted.
Don't think anyone would think any of the original investors investments have increased but have the people managing those investments profited? | | | |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 19:54 - Feb 5 with 280 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 18:12 - Feb 5 by RichardO |
My bad for the incorrect use of the term benefactors when I should have used beneficiaries but I'm sure people understood what was being suggested or being asked.
No bait intended just asking questions even if not correctly put.
Did any of the investors original money actually go into the running of the club or just the buying out of the original owners.
What input do the investors have in the running of the club or is the club now run by an investment firm who the investors pay for their services while also taking a fee for organising and running the club. Is this where Swansea LLC comes into play.
Were the additional funds aqquired (5 million?) put in by someone who thought their investment could change the trajectory from a relatively low value of the club with the safe guard of the interest payments or shares maintains his money but dilutes everybody else's, not sure how the cover note works.
Additional investment again with a safe guard of being paid a chairman's wage.
Has the mismanagement of the club led to the failure of services on and off the pitch while some have benefitted.
Don't think anyone would think any of the original investors investments have increased but have the people managing those investments profited? |
Just a minor correction. It is good you are asking questions.
The original investors bought out Petty. I do not have the exact figure. £1m was put into the club to buy it and pay off any debts. This is similar to HJ purchase of Newport county with £500k.
The £1m went entirely into running of the club. No profits were taken for years and it was reported that HJ and others took no salary in the early years.
The LLC is based in Delaware (not open to the public) and Kaplan and Levien originally attracted 28 other to put in money while the club was in the Premier league. They all have lost.
If it is a "hedge fund" Kaplan and Levien may be the principals and take a fee off the 28 who are their "customers". Their investment has fallen and they still have to pay the 2-3% annual fees. They might have bailed out by now and withdrawn their funds.
The US people have looked at the operation closely with Silverstein spending a few months in Swansea researching. They have responded to complaints of fans saying there was no investment and no interest in the club from US people by both investing and putting an investor in charge.
The US people were not impressed particularly with Cooper or Martin having disagreement with both. Cooper was backed to the hilt and failed miserably in r the end and then moaned. He sent Gyorkeres back instead of developing him. A £25m mistake.
Both in my opinion did not take care of assets they provided Gyokeres and Whitaker and it will be others that will benefit not them. All fans knew Whitaker could score.
The investors firstly took out a Convertible loan note. Silverstein did not want to buy shares while there was a potential legal case (in my opinion). Once the case was settled the loan was used to buy new shares and then the money could not be recovered.
The club gets new money by issuing new shares which people can buy, The Trust did not want any. The money for the new shares goes into the clubs current account. The other shareholders who invest hold more shares therefore a higher proportion of the total (% holding). those who do not invest hold lower a proportion of the club. (dilution).
In the past the LLP employed a person from the UK to manage the club on the behalf as an employee not an owner Birch and Winter
The LLP will have a valuation as a share price I would think. Silverstein and Coleman came after relegation and bought their shares cheaply. If the Swansea LLP had DC share they will be quit happy. The DC shares have rocketed upwards over the last 10 years. It takes $300m just to buy a right for a franchise.
Fans think they can do better but the Trust they run is frankly useless and always has been predominantly perhaps due to the rules it has to obey (Model rules for football Trusts) . They are getting 0.3% on their money.
They are contracting sharply due to dilution, inflation outstanding legal fees and falling membership. The current board inherited this bad scenario. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 21:16 - Feb 5 with 249 views | QJumpingJack |
| No offers for Will Evans at Newport on 19:54 - Feb 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Just a minor correction. It is good you are asking questions.
The original investors bought out Petty. I do not have the exact figure. £1m was put into the club to buy it and pay off any debts. This is similar to HJ purchase of Newport county with £500k.
The £1m went entirely into running of the club. No profits were taken for years and it was reported that HJ and others took no salary in the early years.
The LLC is based in Delaware (not open to the public) and Kaplan and Levien originally attracted 28 other to put in money while the club was in the Premier league. They all have lost.
If it is a "hedge fund" Kaplan and Levien may be the principals and take a fee off the 28 who are their "customers". Their investment has fallen and they still have to pay the 2-3% annual fees. They might have bailed out by now and withdrawn their funds.
The US people have looked at the operation closely with Silverstein spending a few months in Swansea researching. They have responded to complaints of fans saying there was no investment and no interest in the club from US people by both investing and putting an investor in charge.
The US people were not impressed particularly with Cooper or Martin having disagreement with both. Cooper was backed to the hilt and failed miserably in r the end and then moaned. He sent Gyorkeres back instead of developing him. A £25m mistake.
Both in my opinion did not take care of assets they provided Gyokeres and Whitaker and it will be others that will benefit not them. All fans knew Whitaker could score.
The investors firstly took out a Convertible loan note. Silverstein did not want to buy shares while there was a potential legal case (in my opinion). Once the case was settled the loan was used to buy new shares and then the money could not be recovered.
The club gets new money by issuing new shares which people can buy, The Trust did not want any. The money for the new shares goes into the clubs current account. The other shareholders who invest hold more shares therefore a higher proportion of the total (% holding). those who do not invest hold lower a proportion of the club. (dilution).
In the past the LLP employed a person from the UK to manage the club on the behalf as an employee not an owner Birch and Winter
The LLP will have a valuation as a share price I would think. Silverstein and Coleman came after relegation and bought their shares cheaply. If the Swansea LLP had DC share they will be quit happy. The DC shares have rocketed upwards over the last 10 years. It takes $300m just to buy a right for a franchise.
Fans think they can do better but the Trust they run is frankly useless and always has been predominantly perhaps due to the rules it has to obey (Model rules for football Trusts) . They are getting 0.3% on their money.
They are contracting sharply due to dilution, inflation outstanding legal fees and falling membership. The current board inherited this bad scenario. |
if you watch Jack To A King, £50,000 was taken out of a cash machine * according to David Morgan.
Quite remarkable as most cash machines only allow £250/£500 withdrawals at any given time. [Post edited 6 Feb 14:18]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
