| Takeover Confirmed on 09:17 - Jun 7 with 1742 views | skippyjack |
I'm not privvy with the marketing world of global brands.. in fact I'm just a jobless unskilled half wit.. so someone with Leigh dineens business acumen and experience can surely see the glowing error and solution of not aquiring enough shirts.. you simply ask Addidas to put a few thousand shirts on emergency standby on every order.. so when you have run out.. they're waiting in the wings ready to be unleashed!
I'm Leigh Dineen, I'm a multi millionaire businessman I am.. I am.. I'm a multi millionaire businessman I am.. I am.. I does all business and stuff.. because I'm a businessman you see.. you see.. I'm Leigh Dineen I am.
Come on.. I'm worthy of employment after that.. you can clearly see I'm capable of putting boxes on shelves.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
|  |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:29 - Jun 7 with 1709 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:08 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
The Trust really needs to sell its stake - hopefully for circa £20m valuation and bank it and buy back the club taking full fan ownership - when in time things implode.
For the avoidance of doubt I am not saying Venture Capitalists are going to be worse owners than current ones.
I am just putting forward the argument that PL football has been tremendously fluid - with over 40 clubs playing in it. 3 clubs are relegated each and every season. We have between a 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 chance of being relegated each season. Just need a bit of bad luck (for example if Siggy had got injured at wrong time last season) and could then go down.
The Yanks will probably will want to buy the stadium from the Council - as will then have full package of voting control and stadium ownership - to on sell to new investors.
Trouble with this is - Yanks will probably take on £20m to £30m of debt to do it and I would like to understand how Trust could stop this if residual shareholders have assigned the votes on their residual shares to the Yanks.
When we inevitably will get relegated just on the probabilities - then I fear value destruction of the Trust's £20m stake and then having no ability to ever have total fan ownership of our club.
The Trust going forward appears to be in a position of impotence - it can corral local support - but can do this anyway with £20m sitting in the bank, if perceives Yanks are doing anything untoward.
If the Trust can bank the £20m and Yanks take club to next level (whatever that is) then fantastic. However if alternatively we go into a downward spiral - the Trust can step in and take full ownership of the club.
Please take a strategic - long term view on this - not just focussing on immediate future. |
Just one flaw ... the buyers have shown zero interest in buying the Trust's 21%. We've stated several times that the Trust has never said it would never sell, which seems to be one of the excuses for being kept out of the loop, but it's a false argument.
Could the Trust offer to sell their stake on the open market? It's an interesting question. If discussions go badly with the buyers then yes, it's quite possible I guess. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:41 - Jun 7 with 1664 views | dougie |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:47 - Jun 7 by Starsky |
I appreciate your reasoned reply.
ADIDAS for some reason can't do extra runs on replica shirts during the season.
I know that was the problem regarding re-stocking.
However, the adult shirts virtually ran out by the Autumn.
My thoughts:
1: Why would we trade with a company that treats us like that?
2: it was a Centenary shirt. We could have sold a shed load with League cup winners on it towards the end of season. We had 35,000 fans at Wembley for the final and you can't buy a replica shirt to wear at Wembley.
3: it was LD's attitude to me I didn't like by telling me I should have bought it while I had a chance in July.
4: He told me that they couldn't risk overstocking because, as you said, they could be left with loads left over.
5: I checked other Premier teams that had recently been promoted and their shirt sales were buoyant and they had regular restocking throughout the season.
6: ADIDAS treated us as insignificant compared to the other Super clubs. One has to wonder why we signed up with them in the first place. |
At the time i think we were all happy with having Adidas on board. I certainly thought it a step forward. They are, with Nike , the major players. They seem to have changed their approach now though and concentrating on the bigger clubs like Man U. Im guessing Adidas don't really care if we stay with them or go. I'm not sure if going to Joma is good thing. Hopefully when it comes to order levels we will have better flexibility but will their clothing be of the same standard and if not will it impact on sales. Anyway we are way off topic now |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:47 - Jun 7 with 1652 views | dougie |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:29 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
Just one flaw ... the buyers have shown zero interest in buying the Trust's 21%. We've stated several times that the Trust has never said it would never sell, which seems to be one of the excuses for being kept out of the loop, but it's a false argument.
Could the Trust offer to sell their stake on the open market? It's an interesting question. If discussions go badly with the buyers then yes, it's quite possible I guess. |
The shares are priced at £100 each. If we could find 5000 people to buy a share each it would only put a further £500,000 in the bank. That in itself is a tall order. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:57 - Jun 7 with 1631 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:47 - Jun 7 by dougie |
The shares are priced at £100 each. If we could find 5000 people to buy a share each it would only put a further £500,000 in the bank. That in itself is a tall order. |
The Trust isn't in a position to buy more shares. 1% maybe. Could it raise £4m for an extra 4%? Quite possibly. Hell of an exercise, and would it achieve what we want anyway? Debateable.
The ideal scenario here is that the buyers appreciate it's in their interests to have a good working relationship with the Trust, and to achieve that certain guarantees can be put in place. This isn't necessarily a massive issue ... both parties will want the club to grow, remain in the PL and ultimately its value increase as TV revenues continue to rocket upwards. That's where the valye for this deal is for the Americans. It'd be in their interests to ensure the club isn't crippled with debt and run in the long term interests of the fans. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 10:17 - Jun 7 with 1582 views | Dr_Winston |
| Takeover Confirmed on 08:33 - Jun 7 by dougie |
Ultimately I presume he is and ultimately if there was a major problem such as no shirts for the beginning of the season then it is his problem as the fault would have escalated up for him to deal with. But in an organisation as big as the ours they will have managers for each department with the relevant experience.
Hj oversees All the football side of the club. When the manager of the under 11s makes a wrong call during a match that leads to a loss should we blame the manager, his line manager or HJ ? :-) |
If the manager of the under 11s kept making poor decisions and delivering poor performance and nothing was done about it then yes, that would be down to HJ. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 10:55 - Jun 7 with 1544 views | dougie |
| Takeover Confirmed on 10:17 - Jun 7 by Dr_Winston |
If the manager of the under 11s kept making poor decisions and delivering poor performance and nothing was done about it then yes, that would be down to HJ. |
True.
They did do something about the supply of shirts though as they seem to have excess shirts every year going cheap at the end if the season. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:01 - Jun 7 with 1521 views | DafyddHuw |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:57 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
The Trust isn't in a position to buy more shares. 1% maybe. Could it raise £4m for an extra 4%? Quite possibly. Hell of an exercise, and would it achieve what we want anyway? Debateable.
The ideal scenario here is that the buyers appreciate it's in their interests to have a good working relationship with the Trust, and to achieve that certain guarantees can be put in place. This isn't necessarily a massive issue ... both parties will want the club to grow, remain in the PL and ultimately its value increase as TV revenues continue to rocket upwards. That's where the valye for this deal is for the Americans. It'd be in their interests to ensure the club isn't crippled with debt and run in the long term interests of the fans. |
"The ideal scenario here is that the buyers appreciate it's in their interests to have a good working relationship with the Trust"
Why? The yanks have taken over the club whilst totally ignoring the Trust.
Since the news of the selling of the club broke, the Trust have sat on their hands and looked the other way.
The yanks couldn't care less what working relationship they will have with the Trust, because they've recognised that the Trust is toothless - after all, if they can take over the club without a whimper from the Trust, why would they care about the Trust's attitude now that they actually are the owners.
The Trust had it's chance to stick its oar in over the last couple of months and chose not to - yup, the yanks must be absolutely crapping themselves. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 11:04]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:09 - Jun 7 with 1495 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:01 - Jun 7 by DafyddHuw |
"The ideal scenario here is that the buyers appreciate it's in their interests to have a good working relationship with the Trust"
Why? The yanks have taken over the club whilst totally ignoring the Trust.
Since the news of the selling of the club broke, the Trust have sat on their hands and looked the other way.
The yanks couldn't care less what working relationship they will have with the Trust, because they've recognised that the Trust is toothless - after all, if they can take over the club without a whimper from the Trust, why would they care about the Trust's attitude now that they actually are the owners.
The Trust had it's chance to stick its oar in over the last couple of months and chose not to - yup, the yanks must be absolutely crapping themselves. [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 11:04]
|
Have to say I think that's largely nonsense.
If you think the Americans will want a belligerent partner with a major stake capable of whipping up negative PR about them then you're way off the mark. They'll want things to run smoothly.
As for the Trust, what exactly were you expecting up to now. We simply don't know if they are good guys, bad guys or just guys. The lack of information is the issue to hand. Now it seems the share purchase element is complete, even if it'll be some time before everything is signed and sealed and certain people get their cash, now is the time the discussions start in earnest to determine the operating structure for the club. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:18 - Jun 7 with 1472 views | magicdaps10 |
A lot of surmising going on here.
None of us know what has gone on even if some of us have heard snippets off people, there is still no concrete evidence to back up gossip.
The only thing i know is, the Americans are set to take over and i fully suspect that the high percentage on here know as much as that also. |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:28 - Jun 7 with 1451 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:18 - Jun 7 by magicdaps10 |
A lot of surmising going on here.
None of us know what has gone on even if some of us have heard snippets off people, there is still no concrete evidence to back up gossip.
The only thing i know is, the Americans are set to take over and i fully suspect that the high percentage on here know as much as that also. |
Indeed
Also
Moaning about how the club isn't run very good at all
And now moaning it's been taken over . |  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:47 - Jun 7 with 1400 views | Nookiejack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 09:29 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
Just one flaw ... the buyers have shown zero interest in buying the Trust's 21%. We've stated several times that the Trust has never said it would never sell, which seems to be one of the excuses for being kept out of the loop, but it's a false argument.
Could the Trust offer to sell their stake on the open market? It's an interesting question. If discussions go badly with the buyers then yes, it's quite possible I guess. |
On the face of it if the Trust is kept out of this then legally this must be unfairly prejudicial to a resulting minority shareholder.
Currently the Trust is not in a minority shareholder position as is the second largest shareholder - going forward it presumably will have 21% stake but the Yanks will have 79% voting rights. (I am assuming the selling shareholders will assign their voting rights to the Yanks on their residual shares - as part of this deal. Also would'nt surprise me if the Yanks had an option to buy residual stakes at some time in future).
Presumably if the Yanks have 79% voting power can then take debt on. Yanks will have full control of the club through
1.79% voting power and
2. Debt covenants (don't underestimate these)
The Trust is an irrelevance and at total behest of the Yanks.
The Trust also has circa £1m in the bank for top quality legal advice and ability to take this to court to demonstrate it has been unfairly prejudiced. At least selling shareholders and Yanks - know Trust has the financial muscle to do this. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:07 - Jun 7 with 1299 views | dameedna |
Irrelevance
Total behest
Polite words of little substance |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:24 - Jun 7 with 1267 views | costalotta |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:09 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
Have to say I think that's largely nonsense.
If you think the Americans will want a belligerent partner with a major stake capable of whipping up negative PR about them then you're way off the mark. They'll want things to run smoothly.
As for the Trust, what exactly were you expecting up to now. We simply don't know if they are good guys, bad guys or just guys. The lack of information is the issue to hand. Now it seems the share purchase element is complete, even if it'll be some time before everything is signed and sealed and certain people get their cash, now is the time the discussions start in earnest to determine the operating structure for the club. |
Playing devils advocate...
Is it (nonsense) though?
Is it not the remit of the Trust to look after the interests of the fans and ensure there is a professional football club in Swansea. Or something like that anyway.
The start of the 3rd paragraph is quite concerning. If its the lack of information, and information that the Trust did not acquire then why do we need /look up to / have the Trust? Whats the point if they failed in this instance. Also, arguably, the Trust by sitting on their hands have been out flanked and now on the back foot. Lisa has asked some very pertinent questions that it seems have not been answered. If you don't know.... FIND OUT, like you did with the other American, thats what you're supposed to do, its what you (Trust board members) signed up for.
I know there is a time for both inaction and action but this is our football club, not the trusts, or the boards, or the americans. Its ours. The boards interests are their own, The trusts interests should be aligned with ours.
Chamberlain wanted things to run smoothly, look what happened there. |  | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:39 - Jun 7 with 1222 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:24 - Jun 7 by costalotta |
Playing devils advocate...
Is it (nonsense) though?
Is it not the remit of the Trust to look after the interests of the fans and ensure there is a professional football club in Swansea. Or something like that anyway.
The start of the 3rd paragraph is quite concerning. If its the lack of information, and information that the Trust did not acquire then why do we need /look up to / have the Trust? Whats the point if they failed in this instance. Also, arguably, the Trust by sitting on their hands have been out flanked and now on the back foot. Lisa has asked some very pertinent questions that it seems have not been answered. If you don't know.... FIND OUT, like you did with the other American, thats what you're supposed to do, its what you (Trust board members) signed up for.
I know there is a time for both inaction and action but this is our football club, not the trusts, or the boards, or the americans. Its ours. The boards interests are their own, The trusts interests should be aligned with ours.
Chamberlain wanted things to run smoothly, look what happened there. |
Of course that's the remit, but the Trust was never, ever, in a position where it could stop the other shareholders selling. What it can influence is in the running and operation of the club.
You say the Trust sat on its hands but what didn't it do that it was supposed to do? Due diligence on the backers? Who are they? Jenkins stated he didn't know who he was selling to. How do you check a ghost? Ask questions of the Americans? Did that. Answers were not forthcoming. A fact the Trust published many times.
This whole trust inactivity thing is a bit bollox IMO especially as nobody seems to be able to name the steps that weren't taken that should have been. Could the public face have been more aggressive? Sure. But to what end? We simply don't know if these buyers are going to be Petty or Nurse. Change was coming, the sellers were desperate to sell ... the last deal told us that. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:50 - Jun 7 with 1188 views | DafyddHuw |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:09 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
Have to say I think that's largely nonsense.
If you think the Americans will want a belligerent partner with a major stake capable of whipping up negative PR about them then you're way off the mark. They'll want things to run smoothly.
As for the Trust, what exactly were you expecting up to now. We simply don't know if they are good guys, bad guys or just guys. The lack of information is the issue to hand. Now it seems the share purchase element is complete, even if it'll be some time before everything is signed and sealed and certain people get their cash, now is the time the discussions start in earnest to determine the operating structure for the club. |
"If you think the Americans will want a belligerent partner with a major stake capable of whipping up negative PR about them then you're way off the mark. They'll want things to run smoothly."
Yeah, right. The yanks took over the club and it was all done secretly. So they didn't care what the Trust'sm reaction was going to be. Now that they've seen that there's no reaction, they'll be further emboldened.
Any negative PR the Trust can generate, the yanks can go to major media outlets and drown the Trust out. They've already got the South Wales press in their pockets.
What negarive PR can the Trust come up with anyway? It'll only affect Swans' fans. And the yanks can blithely carry on regardless of what us fans think.
Talk about an opportunity missed. But never mind, this is all "largely nonsense". | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:57 - Jun 7 with 1171 views | Landore_Jack |
Not sure if these questions have been asked but will ask anyway.
1. Are you planning to negotiate with the board of directors to have more than one representative?
2. Was there a shareholders agreement that stated the selling of shares must be offered to the existing shareholders first? [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 13:59]
|  |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:59 - Jun 7 with 1156 views | perchrockjack |
So, as Ive suggested before , this is all doom and gloom then.
How does that fit with this board s advocacy of positivity.
The whole subject and the comments herein regarding its eventual outcome , are conjecture.
No more.
HEY, wtf don't we start look forward to a great season | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:00 - Jun 7 with 1156 views | costalotta |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:39 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
Of course that's the remit, but the Trust was never, ever, in a position where it could stop the other shareholders selling. What it can influence is in the running and operation of the club.
You say the Trust sat on its hands but what didn't it do that it was supposed to do? Due diligence on the backers? Who are they? Jenkins stated he didn't know who he was selling to. How do you check a ghost? Ask questions of the Americans? Did that. Answers were not forthcoming. A fact the Trust published many times.
This whole trust inactivity thing is a bit bollox IMO especially as nobody seems to be able to name the steps that weren't taken that should have been. Could the public face have been more aggressive? Sure. But to what end? We simply don't know if these buyers are going to be Petty or Nurse. Change was coming, the sellers were desperate to sell ... the last deal told us that. |
I hear what you're saying regarding people / board member wanting to sell. IMO The trust should be in that position as its the choice of the shareholder. I have no problem with at all.
Over the last 9 /18 months has the trust influenced the running and operation of the club? From where I am it doesn't look like it has. Now, this opinion is based on what i see/hear and the with minimal information and from picking up bits on here from sensible posters, yourself included.
I used to be a member but once the apathy had set it my membership lapsed. I make no apologies for this however, I will be joining again along with my family over the next few days. I urge others to do the same!
One step I would have suggested is keep friendship away from business, that'd be a start. I know hindsight is a wonderful thing buts let's not forget that SCFC is a business, a global one at that. | | | |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:09 - Jun 7 with 1106 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:00 - Jun 7 by costalotta |
I hear what you're saying regarding people / board member wanting to sell. IMO The trust should be in that position as its the choice of the shareholder. I have no problem with at all.
Over the last 9 /18 months has the trust influenced the running and operation of the club? From where I am it doesn't look like it has. Now, this opinion is based on what i see/hear and the with minimal information and from picking up bits on here from sensible posters, yourself included.
I used to be a member but once the apathy had set it my membership lapsed. I make no apologies for this however, I will be joining again along with my family over the next few days. I urge others to do the same!
One step I would have suggested is keep friendship away from business, that'd be a start. I know hindsight is a wonderful thing buts let's not forget that SCFC is a business, a global one at that. |
I think a fair criticism is that the Trust didn't shout out about the concessions it won at the club, and you could list pretty much anything ticket related (plus whatever is coming up for this season) within that.
It's a difficult balance to strike. You need to work with the other shareholders/directors but also hold them to account. It's a difficult line to walk. I wouldn't fancy the gig at all.
Lessons to be learned for sure, even if largely from a position of perception. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:15 - Jun 7 with 1099 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:50 - Jun 7 by DafyddHuw |
"If you think the Americans will want a belligerent partner with a major stake capable of whipping up negative PR about them then you're way off the mark. They'll want things to run smoothly."
Yeah, right. The yanks took over the club and it was all done secretly. So they didn't care what the Trust'sm reaction was going to be. Now that they've seen that there's no reaction, they'll be further emboldened.
Any negative PR the Trust can generate, the yanks can go to major media outlets and drown the Trust out. They've already got the South Wales press in their pockets.
What negarive PR can the Trust come up with anyway? It'll only affect Swans' fans. And the yanks can blithely carry on regardless of what us fans think.
Talk about an opportunity missed. But never mind, this is all "largely nonsense". |
Well, yeah, it pretty much is I'm afraid.
If you want to talk about the local press, they weren't exactly driving Petty out until they realised which was public perception was going.
I'll ask again ... what negative PR exercise should the Trust have performed? Drive them away without knowing what the plans are and we'd be, legitimately, accused of driving away potential investment. Fact is there's been nothing that's come out so far that has meant we can, unequivocally, come out against this deal. Or, indeed, for it.
Not to say I don't have major concerns personally. I think the conduct of the likes of Jenkins in keeping this deal, and information, from the Trust has been scandalous. It's difficult to have faith in a buying party who, to date, has paid scant more than lip service. However, now the terms of purchase have been finalised, the parties need to work through this to determine the future structure. If, after that, the Trust feels these aren't people we can work with then it'll act whatever way it can ... depending on the decision of the members of course. However, and I can only repeat this, there's been nothing to date that has meant we can come out against this deal. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:17 - Jun 7 with 1093 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 13:57 - Jun 7 by Landore_Jack |
Not sure if these questions have been asked but will ask anyway.
1. Are you planning to negotiate with the board of directors to have more than one representative?
2. Was there a shareholders agreement that stated the selling of shares must be offered to the existing shareholders first? [Post edited 7 Jun 2016 13:59]
|
(1) The Trust will negotiate on a number of areas. This would be one I would expect ... doesn't make sense if minor shareholders have a director position but the Trust, with 2 or 4 times the shareholding, has the same. To be honest, it's not the highest thing on my personal wishlist though.
(2) Yes. Moot point to a point considering the Trust has no means to buy, although the fact the Trust were never approached is an issue in itself. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:19 - Jun 7 with 1083 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 11:47 - Jun 7 by Nookiejack |
On the face of it if the Trust is kept out of this then legally this must be unfairly prejudicial to a resulting minority shareholder.
Currently the Trust is not in a minority shareholder position as is the second largest shareholder - going forward it presumably will have 21% stake but the Yanks will have 79% voting rights. (I am assuming the selling shareholders will assign their voting rights to the Yanks on their residual shares - as part of this deal. Also would'nt surprise me if the Yanks had an option to buy residual stakes at some time in future).
Presumably if the Yanks have 79% voting power can then take debt on. Yanks will have full control of the club through
1.79% voting power and
2. Debt covenants (don't underestimate these)
The Trust is an irrelevance and at total behest of the Yanks.
The Trust also has circa £1m in the bank for top quality legal advice and ability to take this to court to demonstrate it has been unfairly prejudiced. At least selling shareholders and Yanks - know Trust has the financial muscle to do this. |
I wouldn't assume any such thing on the voting rights ... however I do not know for sure. | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:24 - Jun 7 with 1075 views | Landore_Jack |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:17 - Jun 7 by Uxbridge |
(1) The Trust will negotiate on a number of areas. This would be one I would expect ... doesn't make sense if minor shareholders have a director position but the Trust, with 2 or 4 times the shareholding, has the same. To be honest, it's not the highest thing on my personal wishlist though.
(2) Yes. Moot point to a point considering the Trust has no means to buy, although the fact the Trust were never approached is an issue in itself. |
Thanks Uxbridge.
Are the Trust planning on taking legal action? | |
| |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:27 - Jun 7 with 1059 views | Uxbridge |
| Takeover Confirmed on 14:24 - Jun 7 by Landore_Jack |
Thanks Uxbridge.
Are the Trust planning on taking legal action? |
Not sure I'd answer that here if I knew. Which I don't. Could make it a legal issue, or at least delay things, if were that way inclined. To what ends would be the question though. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
