| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! 07:37 - Jan 29 with 12049 views | NOTRAC |
There is one fatal flaw in the Trust's approach to the proposed sale of shares to the American investors.
From the beginning they have indicated,without any open discussion with members,that they are not interested themselves in selling any of their shares.From the Trusts minutes it is recorded that from the beginning of negotiations the Trust informed the buyers that their shares were not for sale.
Why?
On a pro rata basis the percentage of shares sold would amount to no more than about 6%.
This would leave the Trust with a 16% share?This would be perfectly adequate to give the Trust the same input into it's Boardroom involvement as now.Same representation,same limits on what it can and can't do.
Whether the Trust has 21% or 16% of the Shares does not really alter the Trusts say in the Boardroom one iota.
If one looks at the Trusts list of Aims or ,in other words the reasons why the Trust was set up in the first place, you will not find any suggestion that the aim of the Trust is to own or run the club.
It's main aim is to ensure the preservation of League football at Swansea..
This aim was obviously a reaction to the dire days ,and aftermath of the Petty era.
In reality there is only one way that the Trust can achieve that aim.
By having sufficient funds to enable or help the Financial state of the club if a similar catastrophe occurs in the future.
From the clubs present position of Premiership and financial well being, it seems almost impossible to imagine a similar catastrophe occurring again.
But we all know that there are no certainties in football, and the lower leagues are littered with successful teams of the past where future certainties are as negative as their bank balances.
A fine example of this is Coventry.In Premiership and preceding First Division days an ever regular well run club.Now a club almost without a ground.
In order therefore for the Trust to follow its own objectives, money is king.
The last three years has seen the Trust receive dividends in accord with its shareholdings of Approximately £600,000.
A nice sum indeed to have in reserve if the calamity ever happens.
But not as nice as £6.6m which is apparently what the Trust would end up with if the they were part of a pro rata sale share.
The giving up of a £6m windfall does not really make any sense
The advantages of retaining the 21% share in the hope of increasing it to a more influential holding is virtually nil.
There would be a small loss in dividends in the future but with a new Board structure there is no guarantee that these would continue anyway.
As stated earlier the 16% holding would still afford the same board representation as previous.
The consequences of not taking the money now, is advantageous to the other shareholders.
And remember most of all that although the Trust talk about a new shareholders agreement to protect their status, this will be almost impossible to achieve if the remaining shareholders do not want it.
In accordance with the Trust's main aim therefore they should take this opportunity of increasing the funding .
In that way ,and that way only, the Trust will have a much better opportunity in the future of achieving its prime aim of maintaining league football in Swansea in the future if ever things once again go pear shape.
|  |
| |  |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:21 - Jan 29 with 2081 views | monmouth |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 11:28 - Jan 29 by Uxbridge |
It's all rather unedifying isn't it. |
If that were true it is all getting rather sickening. Never mind feet of clay, a rather more pungent substance.
I'm starting to think jacko is right.....and old Claudius....let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out. A divided board with war wounds caused by each other really would be like the fall of Rome.
I must say, I know I'm repeating myself and in the minority (of one?) but I'd still be on side (it's all relative) in using sky/transfer money to buy out the ones that want out, cancelling the shares and leaving the trust with a stronger %age shareholding and a changed protective constitution, were that to be doable. We can always vilify any greed driven sh1theads afterwards and make sure they'd prefer to live abroad. It seems that last time around we were simply all too trusting when we grasped at the lifebelt. This context is much different and maybe can be used to advantage to cut out any cancer once and for all? |  |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:35 - Jan 29 with 2067 views | sixpenses |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 10:47 - Jan 29 by NOTRAC |
Look its not about lining our pocket.Its about being realistic.
The only advantage in retaining the 21% is that we only need another 5% rather than 11% to achieve a situation where we have control over special reso;utions.
This has always been a good and necessary objective,.
But we have failed to achieve it, and realistically if weonly needed another 1% at a £1m value we are not going to be given it and we are not going to be able to afford to buy it.
Once we accept that we cannot stop the investment happening and also that we cannot obtain the extra 5% shares, to my mind we do not stick our head in the sand for principles.
The Trusts fundamental aim is to ensure the continuance of league football in Swansea.
Are we more likely to be able to do that with £6m extra in the bank or not?
Because of the changes that are now going to occur in the Boardroom we need to build up that contingency fund .
And I repeat again it doesn,t make any difference to our overall position now or in the future whether we hold 21% or !5%.As we can already deduce, in the grand scheme of things both means nothing, as far as influencing situations when the other shareholders first and foremost want to make decisions which are contrary to what we want . |
We have failed to achieve it because I understand the supporter loving Board has blocked it
"Once we accept we cannot stop the investment happening" cannot - nonsense
Do not go gentle into that good night
Finally it makes a large difference as we are a larger shareholder in the picking order and that much nearer our objective. Most especially if the potential new shareholders believe our constant blocking will frustrate their plans to achieve a controlling interest the share price may drop to a much more palatable level for us. | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:38 - Jan 29 with 2064 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:21 - Jan 29 by monmouth |
If that were true it is all getting rather sickening. Never mind feet of clay, a rather more pungent substance.
I'm starting to think jacko is right.....and old Claudius....let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out. A divided board with war wounds caused by each other really would be like the fall of Rome.
I must say, I know I'm repeating myself and in the minority (of one?) but I'd still be on side (it's all relative) in using sky/transfer money to buy out the ones that want out, cancelling the shares and leaving the trust with a stronger %age shareholding and a changed protective constitution, were that to be doable. We can always vilify any greed driven sh1theads afterwards and make sure they'd prefer to live abroad. It seems that last time around we were simply all too trusting when we grasped at the lifebelt. This context is much different and maybe can be used to advantage to cut out any cancer once and for all? |
I'm in that minority, so long as the price is right ... i.e. low.
I don't think we should rewrite history though. 13 years is a long time. Situations change. On a human level it's all very understandable, however the interests of the individual vs. the club might well be diametrically opposed. |  |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:50 - Jan 29 with 2047 views | monmouth |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:38 - Jan 29 by Uxbridge |
I'm in that minority, so long as the price is right ... i.e. low.
I don't think we should rewrite history though. 13 years is a long time. Situations change. On a human level it's all very understandable, however the interests of the individual vs. the club might well be diametrically opposed. |
I agree about rewriting history...but we didn't forgive Martinez for conveniently "changing" his views for money...I'm not sure we should be any more forgiving of others... | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:54 - Jan 29 with 2042 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:50 - Jan 29 by monmouth |
I agree about rewriting history...but we didn't forgive Martinez for conveniently "changing" his views for money...I'm not sure we should be any more forgiving of others... |
Oh I wasn't for a moment suggesting we give a free ride to anyone cashing in. Just ruminating on the human aspect of it all. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:57 - Jan 29 with 2037 views | perchrockjack |
Andrew
Simple question as I trust your judgement..
Seriously, are we going to sell our club down the river.
Pm if you want if you don't want it shared | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:04 - Jan 29 with 2029 views | monmouth |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:54 - Jan 29 by Uxbridge |
Oh I wasn't for a moment suggesting we give a free ride to anyone cashing in. Just ruminating on the human aspect of it all. |
I'd probably sell...no I'd definitely sell, but I'd never have made the promises in the first place and be happy to have been excluded on that basis. If I had gone in and made the claims they did - even recently in their ego film - and on the basis they have been supported throughout, I would not sell, not unless I was penniless and on my ar$e. They are already rich men and can get rich beyond all reason on modest future dividends. They could also leave a genuine legacy by boosting the trust and taking the lead in building a true premier league community club. They have increasingly failed to live up to their own claims since promotion. All too human, but they cant have it all ways. Their egos and reputations are perhaps still our greatest lever in my view.
What they do will say so much more about them that what they say. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:08 - Jan 29 with 2017 views | Nookiejack |
Have you forgotten about the option that the Yanks are going to be given - to buy additional 30% of non-Trust shares - after acquiring the first 30%. The option can be exercised in 3 years time. This is a total sell-out. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:09 - Jan 29 with 2010 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 12:57 - Jan 29 by perchrockjack |
Andrew
Simple question as I trust your judgement..
Seriously, are we going to sell our club down the river.
Pm if you want if you don't want it shared |
I can only give my opinion on that.
The Trust won't. It's totally opposite to the Trust goals, no matter what a certain lackey would have you believe.
As for the directors intentions, any comment I make would be guesswork and to be honest I may have met most of them once or twice in a social setting but I don't know them. There are plenty better placed than I on that score. However it has been confirmed that discussions are taking place with a potential buyer, so that at least is real, and would infer at least some interest in selling. We will all find out sooner rather than later I suspect.
As Jacko has said, no formal offer exists and discussions have not been completed, so it's impossible to say for certain what will happen next or what the next move for the Trust would be. All I know is that the right people are having the right conversations, even if a lot of that, by its very definition, has to occur behind closed doors.
The one thing I would say is don't take silence for inertia, at least on the Trust's part. It's easy to assume nothing is happening or things are being kept from the fans but from what I've seen it isn't the case. In fact I strongly suspect much more than certain people would like has been shared with the general public in that Q&A. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:11 - Jan 29 with 2006 views | perchrockjack |
Andrew
Thank you..
That is all the information I need..
It should also clear matters for all | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:12 - Jan 29 with 2006 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:04 - Jan 29 by monmouth |
I'd probably sell...no I'd definitely sell, but I'd never have made the promises in the first place and be happy to have been excluded on that basis. If I had gone in and made the claims they did - even recently in their ego film - and on the basis they have been supported throughout, I would not sell, not unless I was penniless and on my ar$e. They are already rich men and can get rich beyond all reason on modest future dividends. They could also leave a genuine legacy by boosting the trust and taking the lead in building a true premier league community club. They have increasingly failed to live up to their own claims since promotion. All too human, but they cant have it all ways. Their egos and reputations are perhaps still our greatest lever in my view.
What they do will say so much more about them that what they say. |
Well I could hardly disagree with that, and in an ideal world anyone looking to exit would also ensure the long term prosperity of the club. We'll find out soon enough how much of an ideal world we live in  | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:16 - Jan 29 with 1995 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:04 - Jan 29 by monmouth |
I'd probably sell...no I'd definitely sell, but I'd never have made the promises in the first place and be happy to have been excluded on that basis. If I had gone in and made the claims they did - even recently in their ego film - and on the basis they have been supported throughout, I would not sell, not unless I was penniless and on my ar$e. They are already rich men and can get rich beyond all reason on modest future dividends. They could also leave a genuine legacy by boosting the trust and taking the lead in building a true premier league community club. They have increasingly failed to live up to their own claims since promotion. All too human, but they cant have it all ways. Their egos and reputations are perhaps still our greatest lever in my view.
What they do will say so much more about them that what they say. |
Dressing this up as 'investment' to blind the prolateriat - has lost people's respect of the Board. Wonder what they are going to do with their £60m. Buy another football club? Like the Newport County lottery millionaire. | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:20 - Jan 29 with 1992 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:11 - Jan 29 by perchrockjack |
Andrew
Thank you..
That is all the information I need..
It should also clear matters for all |
Thanks.
It won't though. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 15:08 - Jan 29 with 1911 views | whiterock |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 11:22 - Jan 29 by jackonicko |
And the fact that he would drop from being the largest shareholder to third place if he sold on a pro-rated basis.
Nah, couldn't be that. |
Has Notrac ever said he isn't MM's lacky? | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 15:12 - Jan 29 with 1906 views | whiterock |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 13:04 - Jan 29 by monmouth |
I'd probably sell...no I'd definitely sell, but I'd never have made the promises in the first place and be happy to have been excluded on that basis. If I had gone in and made the claims they did - even recently in their ego film - and on the basis they have been supported throughout, I would not sell, not unless I was penniless and on my ar$e. They are already rich men and can get rich beyond all reason on modest future dividends. They could also leave a genuine legacy by boosting the trust and taking the lead in building a true premier league community club. They have increasingly failed to live up to their own claims since promotion. All too human, but they cant have it all ways. Their egos and reputations are perhaps still our greatest lever in my view.
What they do will say so much more about them that what they say. |
But that was Mal Pope, rewriting history, and he knew all about the Yanks | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 15:47 - Jan 29 with 1800 views | jackonicko |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 15:08 - Jan 29 by whiterock |
Has Notrac ever said he isn't MM's lacky? |
No.
I think the thread title needs amending by one word - The Trust had it different from the start!
That's true - because the Trust is the only shareholder who can't be (quite reasonably) blinded by the dollars on offer. Of course the trust could bank £6m and trade off part of its influence. The mistake the OP makes is in presuming the Trust hasn't considered that option.
But other than having some money in the bank in case it all goes wrong in the future, I'm yet to see a compelling argument in favour. And lets face it, with the numbers involved these days, £6m wouldn't get us out of the kind of smoking holes now seen littered around the Championship. Or League 1.
The Trust came out and said it was not in favour of change at this time. It has since re-iterated that stance. Funny that we suddenly get more posts here from board members' friends saying that that stance should change, and yet another rehash in the SWEP.
In whose interests precisely would it be for the Trust to change its stance? The agitation suggests the Trust is right to be different, not wrong. [Post edited 29 Jan 2015 15:49]
|  | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 15:48 - Jan 29 with 1799 views | fbreath |
What good would £6m pound in the bank do for the trust if the club was stripped and left with say £60m worth of debt. How is the other £54m going to be paid back to debtors ?
The new owners are not going to leave a mess to just gain a few million it will be big numbers they want. |  |
| We are the first Welsh club to reach the Premier League Simples |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 16:09 - Jan 29 with 1784 views | whiterock |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 15:47 - Jan 29 by jackonicko |
No.
I think the thread title needs amending by one word - The Trust had it different from the start!
That's true - because the Trust is the only shareholder who can't be (quite reasonably) blinded by the dollars on offer. Of course the trust could bank £6m and trade off part of its influence. The mistake the OP makes is in presuming the Trust hasn't considered that option.
But other than having some money in the bank in case it all goes wrong in the future, I'm yet to see a compelling argument in favour. And lets face it, with the numbers involved these days, £6m wouldn't get us out of the kind of smoking holes now seen littered around the Championship. Or League 1.
The Trust came out and said it was not in favour of change at this time. It has since re-iterated that stance. Funny that we suddenly get more posts here from board members' friends saying that that stance should change, and yet another rehash in the SWEP.
In whose interests precisely would it be for the Trust to change its stance? The agitation suggests the Trust is right to be different, not wrong. [Post edited 29 Jan 2015 15:49]
|
Back to the drawing board NOTRAC | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 16:34 - Jan 29 with 1772 views | tomdickharry |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 16:09 - Jan 29 by whiterock |
Back to the drawing board NOTRAC |
From the limited information before us all Notrac has formulated and posted is an opinion which may very well turn out to be accurate. Lets just wait and see. | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 16:55 - Jan 29 with 1756 views | Uxbridge |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 16:34 - Jan 29 by tomdickharry |
From the limited information before us all Notrac has formulated and posted is an opinion which may very well turn out to be accurate. Lets just wait and see. |
No he hasn't. He's posted an opinion about the Trust position at 16%, which is fundamentally flawed. | |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 17:39 - Jan 29 with 1734 views | Nookiejack |
I would also like to ask Notrac is he advising the Trust to sell another 6% - down from 16% to 10% when the Yank's exercise the option in three years time? | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 17:44 - Jan 29 with 1731 views | Millie |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 16:34 - Jan 29 by tomdickharry |
From the limited information before us all Notrac has formulated and posted is an opinion which may very well turn out to be accurate. Lets just wait and see. |
Is it his opinion though? Or his bosses | | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 19:15 - Jan 30 with 1656 views | Phil_S |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 15:47 - Jan 29 by jackonicko |
No.
I think the thread title needs amending by one word - The Trust had it different from the start!
That's true - because the Trust is the only shareholder who can't be (quite reasonably) blinded by the dollars on offer. Of course the trust could bank £6m and trade off part of its influence. The mistake the OP makes is in presuming the Trust hasn't considered that option.
But other than having some money in the bank in case it all goes wrong in the future, I'm yet to see a compelling argument in favour. And lets face it, with the numbers involved these days, £6m wouldn't get us out of the kind of smoking holes now seen littered around the Championship. Or League 1.
The Trust came out and said it was not in favour of change at this time. It has since re-iterated that stance. Funny that we suddenly get more posts here from board members' friends saying that that stance should change, and yet another rehash in the SWEP.
In whose interests precisely would it be for the Trust to change its stance? The agitation suggests the Trust is right to be different, not wrong. [Post edited 29 Jan 2015 15:49]
|
Unsurprisingly I totally agree with this! |  | | |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 20:16 - Jan 30 with 1630 views | NOTRAC |
I started this thread because from the information available the ideal of retaining shares appeared to be set in stone. This appeared to be the Trusts position from the beginning, the minutes indicating that this position had been conveyed to the American investors virtually from day one.
I don't think that anyone could quarrel with the ethics of the stance, but I felt that it needed to be analysed in more depth and more fully discussed.
From variance points made since it would appear that the Trust carefully considered the cash option ,which is of course correct and good, but this was not apparent from previous minutes and notes.
I think the Trust has always made us aware of the inadequacy of the present percentage holding,and I think from the obvious difficulties in trying to acquire these vital extra shares, particularly missing out only a few years ago on the Mel Nurse sale, it would be fair to assume that there is very little inclination from the other shareholders to help the Trust obtain these shares.
The reason ,of course for wanting these extra shares is to ensure survival of the Trusts present power and influence should unwanted events occur in the future.
This unwanted event is of course the watering down of the shares through an increase in share capital by special resolution.
If this happened the likelihood is that it would be done as a result of the main shareholder or shareholders wanting to maximise their profits from a Company takeover.
For the first time since the Trust was formed we are entering into a position of uncertainty and possible insecurity.
The classic hedge hunters acquisition for sale is initial purchase of a minority holding, loans to the Company which could later be converted to equity, and the further purchase of shares to gain full control . The whole package is then developed and sold on with maximum profit to the investor.
Some may think that this process is beginning, and however much we hope it isn't ,there is no doubt that the Americans have not come into the Club for the love of football And Swansea City in particular.
I am confident that the Trust is extremely vigilant at the moment,the use of outside professional advisors being a good and prime example.
I think that I have already outlined the advantages of a partial sale, which is of course substantial money in the bank for virtually no loss of present board involvement.
The Trust has decided not to sell its shares at any price. Although I don't quite agree with this stance I admire the principals behind it.
What I would now ask is continued vigilance by the Trust and a higher communication level with its members.
As many have pointed out we the members are an important tool .Cardiff's anti red brigade have proved that dictatorial decisions can be altered.
Hopefully all of us can play a part in the future in ensuring that the Trusts position as an unique part of this club will continue, regardless of who the future owners may be. [Post edited 30 Jan 2015 20:32]
| |
| |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 20:49 - Jan 30 with 1600 views | longlostjack |
| The Trust has had it wrong from the start! on 20:16 - Jan 30 by NOTRAC |
I started this thread because from the information available the ideal of retaining shares appeared to be set in stone. This appeared to be the Trusts position from the beginning, the minutes indicating that this position had been conveyed to the American investors virtually from day one.
I don't think that anyone could quarrel with the ethics of the stance, but I felt that it needed to be analysed in more depth and more fully discussed.
From variance points made since it would appear that the Trust carefully considered the cash option ,which is of course correct and good, but this was not apparent from previous minutes and notes.
I think the Trust has always made us aware of the inadequacy of the present percentage holding,and I think from the obvious difficulties in trying to acquire these vital extra shares, particularly missing out only a few years ago on the Mel Nurse sale, it would be fair to assume that there is very little inclination from the other shareholders to help the Trust obtain these shares.
The reason ,of course for wanting these extra shares is to ensure survival of the Trusts present power and influence should unwanted events occur in the future.
This unwanted event is of course the watering down of the shares through an increase in share capital by special resolution.
If this happened the likelihood is that it would be done as a result of the main shareholder or shareholders wanting to maximise their profits from a Company takeover.
For the first time since the Trust was formed we are entering into a position of uncertainty and possible insecurity.
The classic hedge hunters acquisition for sale is initial purchase of a minority holding, loans to the Company which could later be converted to equity, and the further purchase of shares to gain full control . The whole package is then developed and sold on with maximum profit to the investor.
Some may think that this process is beginning, and however much we hope it isn't ,there is no doubt that the Americans have not come into the Club for the love of football And Swansea City in particular.
I am confident that the Trust is extremely vigilant at the moment,the use of outside professional advisors being a good and prime example.
I think that I have already outlined the advantages of a partial sale, which is of course substantial money in the bank for virtually no loss of present board involvement.
The Trust has decided not to sell its shares at any price. Although I don't quite agree with this stance I admire the principals behind it.
What I would now ask is continued vigilance by the Trust and a higher communication level with its members.
As many have pointed out we the members are an important tool .Cardiff's anti red brigade have proved that dictatorial decisions can be altered.
Hopefully all of us can play a part in the future in ensuring that the Trusts position as an unique part of this club will continue, regardless of who the future owners may be. [Post edited 30 Jan 2015 20:32]
|
A more conciliatory post than previously offered and good to see that supporters are not being taken for fools. Disappointed with the observation that
"it would be fair to assume that there is very little inclination from the other shareholders to help the Trust obtain these shares" as I feel that would go a long way to safeguarding the future of the club. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
