| Interesting Trust Email 20:09 - Jun 29 with 121315 views | Neath_Jack |
Regarding the options open to us.
It's going to cause some massive debate on here i reckon  |  |
| |  |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:50 - Jul 5 with 2016 views | dameedna |
Maybe going more neutral than that.
There must be cosiderable advice on the other side around what to offer and what the Trust will settle for.
The Trust is still in a better position than most if not all fan bases and we are dealing with clean not dirty money. That is a big difference.
Next fight maybe dirtier. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:59 - Jul 5 with 2006 views | Nookiejack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:09 - Jul 5 by Uxbridge |
I've never said my work involved statistics. I said I've studied it. Bit of a difference.
I do know a bit about it though, and I know that you taking one season's bookies odds and a) using that as an accurate prediction of the odds of safety, and b) extrapolating that over a number of years is as fundamentally flawed as my finger in the air approach was.
If this has been about 20 years ago at the back end of my degree I'd have put together a sophisticated statistical model looking at historic trends, relative balance sheets, squad valuations, geographic locations (laugh if you want, but derby matches are statistically less predictable than others) and a whole host of factors. It'd have been a thing of beauty. And we could all have had a good laugh as that prediction model comprehensively failed to predict anything. That's the thing about statistical models. The recent elections show us that.
My point is that your approach was flawed. Bookies odds will take into account their own models into the likelihood of an event happening, but it will also take into account the market. That's why markets move when people put money on them - bookies are basically hedging to ensure they're covered in all scenarios.
A major flaw in your approach also is you've failed to look at the likelihood of promotion back to the Premier League if we are relegated. Historic average of automatic promotion is 25%, rising to 34% if looking over two years. The doomsday scenario of League 1 or below after 2 years? 3.4%.
This is all lovely theory of course, but it doesn't amount to anything. Everyone's guessing on the likelihood of events occurring. But please, please, don't pretend that there's anything scientific or statistically sound than anyone else's approach, because that's just plain wrong. |
But surely one has to assess % likelihood of the key issues such as relegation when making the decision whether to accept offer or go to court.
If we were a top 6 side then say only 1% chance of being relegated - given where we finished last year there is a current 30% chance for this upcoming season. That increases over 5 seasons (accepting your point we could bounce back).
Similarly what is the chance of winning the court case - I understand it is strong whicj indicates a high chance of success (can still lose of course even if have 90% chance of winning).
So if high chance of relegation over 5 seasons where could into a downward spiral verses high chance of winning the court case and banking the £21m to £23m - doesn't that lead to the decision that legal action should be taken? |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:01 - Jul 5 with 2000 views | Algorfajack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 08:21 - Jul 5 by Uxbridge |
Yes there are special considerations for overseas members. I would contact the Trust via the website contact form and someone will get back to you asap. |
Hi Ux, I have contacted the trust about this on the 30th June, still awaiting a reply.
Subsequently, I PM'd Phil & fair play he responded swiftly informing me that they are extremely busy with people contacting them & that I should get a response either that day or the following day. That was on July 3rd but no response as yet.
I |  |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:05 - Jul 5 with 1993 views | DafyddHuw |
When's the Q&A session prior to the vote please?
And when's the vote? |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:39 - Jul 5 with 1952 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:24 - Jul 5 by Nookiejack |
Uxbridge,
The other determinant of whether the 'tag' rights have value - which hasn't really been discussed in depth on this thread is the likelihood of current TV rights being maintained or increasing.
SKY have recently announced that they are going to set up dedicated sports channels. From my understanding one will be for the PL and one for the Championship.
So instead of SKY subscribers having to take the full package across number of channels - they could just choose PL channel at much cheaper cost.
Some commentators think SKY have taken this decision due to increased streaming / use of Kodi etc.
It therefore may be indicative that SKY PL football revenues have peaked. Of course setting up dedictared Sports channels may increase the PL revenues.
What other commentators have also mentioned is that this could then further lead to the dedicated sports channels then being further split into channels for individual clubs. Or press the 'red' button and you can just watch Man Utd games for example. Hence the big clubs could then take away the majority of the TV revenues. It could lead to the break up of the PL collective agreement. The
So even if we stay in PL you can't be sure that TV revenues will stay the same or keep increasing.
This is a big risk to the value of the Trust's shares given the club's revenues are so skewed to TV revenues (please don't argue that stadium naming rights will compensate for this).
Of course TV can keep exponentially increasing, we stay in PL and the value of the 'Tag' rights kick in. It all depends on your assessment of risk.
You are more bullish - I am more conservative as think the current value should be banked as that will guarantee long term security for the club - if we win the court case. |
That last sentence is interesting. I can't see how legal action is the conservative option. That for me has much more risk involved, and in many different ways.
On the TV rights question, every indicator is that this is only going upwards. Every time someone says there's a ceiling, it promptly gets smashed. You note the domestic rights, but there is exponential growth in the overseas markets. I completely agree there is likely to be significant disruption in this area, there surely has to be a move to IPTV being legally distributable within the UK, however I expect to see it leading to becoming increasingly monetised rather than less. You're right, nobody can be sure what the future will bring, however the odds are surely significantly in favour of the TV rights increasing in the future. |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:40 - Jul 5 with 1949 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:01 - Jul 5 by Algorfajack |
Hi Ux, I have contacted the trust about this on the 30th June, still awaiting a reply.
Subsequently, I PM'd Phil & fair play he responded swiftly informing me that they are extremely busy with people contacting them & that I should get a response either that day or the following day. That was on July 3rd but no response as yet.
I |
I know someone was planning to go through them a day or so ago. I'll ask the question anyway. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:42 - Jul 5 with 1941 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:05 - Jul 5 by DafyddHuw |
When's the Q&A session prior to the vote please?
And when's the vote? |
Read the thread mun, there's only a few pages 
TBC. You're looking at back end of the month. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:14 - Jul 5 with 1901 views | Algorfajack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:40 - Jul 5 by Uxbridge |
I know someone was planning to go through them a day or so ago. I'll ask the question anyway. |
Had a reply at 1030 am, Ta mucho | |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:34 - Jul 5 with 1860 views | DafyddHuw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:42 - Jul 5 by Uxbridge |
Read the thread mun, there's only a few pages
TBC. You're looking at back end of the month. |
Re the Q&A session - I asked about a week ago and you replied -
"We know the articles changed last summer. The nature of how they changed doesn't make them invalid. We covered that in October as I recall?
Yes I believe another forum is scheduled.
Just to elaborate on one thing I said earlier that the plan was originally to try and perform both the ballots for the Trust board and the sale/legal vote at the same time. Given the timings needed for the board election to be fully complete by end of July, it'll probably mean that there'll be two mailings - first for the trust board, and later for the sale/legal ballot. Dates TBC."
The pertinent bit being "Yes I believe another forum is scheduled."
Since then nobody's mentioned anything about a Q&A session. Does this mean there isn't gping to be one?
And I know your tongue-in-cheek response this time was "Look at this thread" but what about queries from Trust members who don't do Planet Swans? Where are they getting their information from? Apart from a 1-1 conversation on the Trust website.
And really, with a matter of such importance, now that we've had time to digest the facts, don't you think that Trust members deserve a face-to-face Q&A opportunity?
I really appreciate everyone's busy, but it's the future direction of the club at stake here... | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:39 - Jul 5 with 1854 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 09:59 - Jul 5 by Nookiejack |
But surely one has to assess % likelihood of the key issues such as relegation when making the decision whether to accept offer or go to court.
If we were a top 6 side then say only 1% chance of being relegated - given where we finished last year there is a current 30% chance for this upcoming season. That increases over 5 seasons (accepting your point we could bounce back).
Similarly what is the chance of winning the court case - I understand it is strong whicj indicates a high chance of success (can still lose of course even if have 90% chance of winning).
So if high chance of relegation over 5 seasons where could into a downward spiral verses high chance of winning the court case and banking the £21m to £23m - doesn't that lead to the decision that legal action should be taken? |
Last reply from me for the day ... I should actually do some work.
To answer your question, I think it very much depends on what you want to get out of it all. If you're looking solely to maximise the Trust's bank account, which I think it's fair to say is your principal criteria, then I can see the logic of your calculations. I don't really agree with the weighting you are putting onto things, but that's all subjective. If I was looking at it solely in that way, I'd still probably err towards the offer TBH, as I'd also look at the worst case scenarios of both.
I'll walk through my decision making process. In an ideal world the Trust could have got all the protections it wanted - non-dilution, veto rights, proper protection for our view of how the football club should have been run. Wasn't happening, so we need to look at which of the options best suit our interests.
Let's look at the offer. It provides money up front, which'll take the Trust funds to around £6m (before tax, which'll be around 20% ... nobody's really talking about that). That could be used for numerous things, one of which is protecting against dilution (you're looking at a factor of 6.21 at which they'd need to issue shares before the Trust couldn't participate) if that is the best use of the funds. It may not be, and we could be better served keeping that money for other purposes. That's for another day. That pot could also double if other conditions are met.
A big concern has always been how unprotected the Trust's shareholding is. Much talk of control premiums but a minority stake is always worth significantly less, pro rata, than a majority one. No arguments there. The Tag along rights will mean that stake is worth the same, pro rata, as the Americans. That's a big thing. They'll be betting on the club being worth considerably more than what they paid for it.
The real fly in the ointment for me has always been the drag rights. The fundamental principle of the Trust was to ensure we had a stake in the club. This puts it at risk, and I don't like it. Some will vote against the deal on that basis alone, and I completely get it.
I won't comment on the 20% clause because I think it's meaningless in its current form, and I don't find the HJ clause as emotive as others - he's a shareholder today so a small bump in that doesn't really matter, if we're taking emotion out of it.
Moving on to the legal action ... the good news is that it's a strong case. If it wasn't, we'd be in real trouble. It's winnable and the Trust has significant funds to fight it. That's the good side. The down side is all too obvious. It will affect the club, probably delay some decisions such as stadium expansion (if that's even imminent), and it'll certainly impact the involvement with the Trust in the club. Some may dismiss this already but I don't. Then there's the case itself - which isn't predictable. If we win then things are relatively hunky dory for the Trust, but losing would be an absolute nightmare ... no funds, a minority stake with no protections, no say in anything. Goodnight Irene.
However, let's look at the probable outcome of winning the case. The probable result of that is the Trust sells its shares in its entirety. After tax, you're probably looking at £16-£17m in the bank. Not an unhealthy chunk of change. That fundamental aim of securing football in the city is looking pretty good now. The price of course is that the Trust then has zero say in the running of the club. For how long then becomes key, and we simply don't know. You talk about taking over the whole club in the doomsday scenario, but when is that? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? We don't know. That pot isn't enough to fully take over a relatively solvent Championship club, which in all likelihood is what we'd be if we got relegated.
Is that still better than the alternative? That partly comes down to how you value the involvement of the Trust today. Some think there is no point in the Trust being there now as it can simply be overruled. True enough, however I'd say the existing relationship that has been developed has significant value, particularly in ensuring that the club is run a manner that looks after the long term interests of the fans. The Trust may be overruled, but being involved is surely better than not.
There's also the not inconsiderable consideration of how this affects the club. Let's be honest, we're the ones who care what happens to the club. They've got money in it, but it's not their way of life. Legal action will impact things in the short term at the very least. It makes relegation more likely. How much is open to question, but uncertainty is likely to result in a poorer playing squad than certainty would. Funnily enough, this isn't on my top 3 factors, but for many it'll be #1, #2 and #3.
There is of course the much maligned third option. Keep the status quo. Keep the current relationships, but the Trust will forever remain a minority shareholder with a stake being kept with no real consideration for its financial value. The Trust is also in a very weak position in terms of a future share issue, and there's little scope to react to any future financial apocalypse.
This has been pretty much dismissed on this site, however I have a hunch it's much more prevalent out there than anyone here is appreciating ... it's certainly one that the Trust has been getting a lot of questions about. I fully expect a sizeable amount of the vote will err towards this side.
So, my rationale.
I don't like the status quo as the Trust has precious little room to manoeuvre, so reluctantly I shall have to vote against that.
So I have to weigh up the other two options - is the probable prospect of something from £18m-£23m in the Trust bank and the guaranteed exit of the Trust from any real relationship with the club enough to risk the downsides and risks (to the club and Trust) of legal action, and also better than £4-6m in the bank now, potentially another £4-6m if conditions are met, the continued involvement with the club for as long as the current ownership structure is in place and peace in our time. True, the future beyond that is not well known, but if the Trust is jettisoned then - which is not guaranteed - there's a further lump sum of anything from £0 to £20m or so in that future too.
It's a judgement call for sure. On the above rationale, I err towards the deal. I'd be a damn sight happier about it without drag along rights though. [Post edited 5 Jul 2017 11:48]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:40 - Jul 5 with 1846 views | Uxbridge |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:34 - Jul 5 by DafyddHuw |
Re the Q&A session - I asked about a week ago and you replied -
"We know the articles changed last summer. The nature of how they changed doesn't make them invalid. We covered that in October as I recall?
Yes I believe another forum is scheduled.
Just to elaborate on one thing I said earlier that the plan was originally to try and perform both the ballots for the Trust board and the sale/legal vote at the same time. Given the timings needed for the board election to be fully complete by end of July, it'll probably mean that there'll be two mailings - first for the trust board, and later for the sale/legal ballot. Dates TBC."
The pertinent bit being "Yes I believe another forum is scheduled."
Since then nobody's mentioned anything about a Q&A session. Does this mean there isn't gping to be one?
And I know your tongue-in-cheek response this time was "Look at this thread" but what about queries from Trust members who don't do Planet Swans? Where are they getting their information from? Apart from a 1-1 conversation on the Trust website.
And really, with a matter of such importance, now that we've had time to digest the facts, don't you think that Trust members deserve a face-to-face Q&A opportunity?
I really appreciate everyone's busy, but it's the future direction of the club at stake here... |
Another forum is planned. I just don't know the dates for that and the vote yet. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:41 - Jul 5 with 1837 views | DafyddHuw |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:40 - Jul 5 by Uxbridge |
Another forum is planned. I just don't know the dates for that and the vote yet. |
OK. Thanks | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:58 - Jul 5 with 1809 views | QJumpingJack |
A big thank you to Ux, Phil and MattG for taking the time to post over the last few days on this subject.
Out of interest do other Trust board members post on these forums? | | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:37 - Jul 5 with 1752 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 11:39 - Jul 5 by Uxbridge |
Last reply from me for the day ... I should actually do some work.
To answer your question, I think it very much depends on what you want to get out of it all. If you're looking solely to maximise the Trust's bank account, which I think it's fair to say is your principal criteria, then I can see the logic of your calculations. I don't really agree with the weighting you are putting onto things, but that's all subjective. If I was looking at it solely in that way, I'd still probably err towards the offer TBH, as I'd also look at the worst case scenarios of both.
I'll walk through my decision making process. In an ideal world the Trust could have got all the protections it wanted - non-dilution, veto rights, proper protection for our view of how the football club should have been run. Wasn't happening, so we need to look at which of the options best suit our interests.
Let's look at the offer. It provides money up front, which'll take the Trust funds to around £6m (before tax, which'll be around 20% ... nobody's really talking about that). That could be used for numerous things, one of which is protecting against dilution (you're looking at a factor of 6.21 at which they'd need to issue shares before the Trust couldn't participate) if that is the best use of the funds. It may not be, and we could be better served keeping that money for other purposes. That's for another day. That pot could also double if other conditions are met.
A big concern has always been how unprotected the Trust's shareholding is. Much talk of control premiums but a minority stake is always worth significantly less, pro rata, than a majority one. No arguments there. The Tag along rights will mean that stake is worth the same, pro rata, as the Americans. That's a big thing. They'll be betting on the club being worth considerably more than what they paid for it.
The real fly in the ointment for me has always been the drag rights. The fundamental principle of the Trust was to ensure we had a stake in the club. This puts it at risk, and I don't like it. Some will vote against the deal on that basis alone, and I completely get it.
I won't comment on the 20% clause because I think it's meaningless in its current form, and I don't find the HJ clause as emotive as others - he's a shareholder today so a small bump in that doesn't really matter, if we're taking emotion out of it.
Moving on to the legal action ... the good news is that it's a strong case. If it wasn't, we'd be in real trouble. It's winnable and the Trust has significant funds to fight it. That's the good side. The down side is all too obvious. It will affect the club, probably delay some decisions such as stadium expansion (if that's even imminent), and it'll certainly impact the involvement with the Trust in the club. Some may dismiss this already but I don't. Then there's the case itself - which isn't predictable. If we win then things are relatively hunky dory for the Trust, but losing would be an absolute nightmare ... no funds, a minority stake with no protections, no say in anything. Goodnight Irene.
However, let's look at the probable outcome of winning the case. The probable result of that is the Trust sells its shares in its entirety. After tax, you're probably looking at £16-£17m in the bank. Not an unhealthy chunk of change. That fundamental aim of securing football in the city is looking pretty good now. The price of course is that the Trust then has zero say in the running of the club. For how long then becomes key, and we simply don't know. You talk about taking over the whole club in the doomsday scenario, but when is that? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? We don't know. That pot isn't enough to fully take over a relatively solvent Championship club, which in all likelihood is what we'd be if we got relegated.
Is that still better than the alternative? That partly comes down to how you value the involvement of the Trust today. Some think there is no point in the Trust being there now as it can simply be overruled. True enough, however I'd say the existing relationship that has been developed has significant value, particularly in ensuring that the club is run a manner that looks after the long term interests of the fans. The Trust may be overruled, but being involved is surely better than not.
There's also the not inconsiderable consideration of how this affects the club. Let's be honest, we're the ones who care what happens to the club. They've got money in it, but it's not their way of life. Legal action will impact things in the short term at the very least. It makes relegation more likely. How much is open to question, but uncertainty is likely to result in a poorer playing squad than certainty would. Funnily enough, this isn't on my top 3 factors, but for many it'll be #1, #2 and #3.
There is of course the much maligned third option. Keep the status quo. Keep the current relationships, but the Trust will forever remain a minority shareholder with a stake being kept with no real consideration for its financial value. The Trust is also in a very weak position in terms of a future share issue, and there's little scope to react to any future financial apocalypse.
This has been pretty much dismissed on this site, however I have a hunch it's much more prevalent out there than anyone here is appreciating ... it's certainly one that the Trust has been getting a lot of questions about. I fully expect a sizeable amount of the vote will err towards this side.
So, my rationale.
I don't like the status quo as the Trust has precious little room to manoeuvre, so reluctantly I shall have to vote against that.
So I have to weigh up the other two options - is the probable prospect of something from £18m-£23m in the Trust bank and the guaranteed exit of the Trust from any real relationship with the club enough to risk the downsides and risks (to the club and Trust) of legal action, and also better than £4-6m in the bank now, potentially another £4-6m if conditions are met, the continued involvement with the club for as long as the current ownership structure is in place and peace in our time. True, the future beyond that is not well known, but if the Trust is jettisoned then - which is not guaranteed - there's a further lump sum of anything from £0 to £20m or so in that future too.
It's a judgement call for sure. On the above rationale, I err towards the deal. I'd be a damn sight happier about it without drag along rights though. [Post edited 5 Jul 2017 11:48]
|
Why is relegation more likely if legal action is taken, as a last resort, simply to acquire what is yours in any event ?
That's a bold statement. And inaccurate in my view. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:45 - Jul 5 with 1739 views | Whiterockin |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:37 - Jul 5 by swancity |
Why is relegation more likely if legal action is taken, as a last resort, simply to acquire what is yours in any event ?
That's a bold statement. And inaccurate in my view. |
Like much coming from the trust at the moment, opinion not fact. |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:22 - Jul 5 with 1682 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:45 - Jul 5 by Whiterockin |
Like much coming from the trust at the moment, opinion not fact. |
With respect to Uxbridge here he's like a lot of clever people in that they can't apply simple common sense to situations very often. And consequently they get lost and muddled in their own desperate attempts to convince others. It's happening here. He can't see the obvious. He can't see the wood for the trees.
It's a pity as it undoes everything else but look at the 35 pages here of his desperate attempts to convince everyone that legal is not the route. Often he's writing essays, chapters, books on the subject matter but not getting anywhere fast.
Sad to see the Trust giving up the ghost. Or trying to. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:33 - Jul 5 with 1669 views | waynekerr55 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:22 - Jul 5 by swancity |
With respect to Uxbridge here he's like a lot of clever people in that they can't apply simple common sense to situations very often. And consequently they get lost and muddled in their own desperate attempts to convince others. It's happening here. He can't see the obvious. He can't see the wood for the trees.
It's a pity as it undoes everything else but look at the 35 pages here of his desperate attempts to convince everyone that legal is not the route. Often he's writing essays, chapters, books on the subject matter but not getting anywhere fast.
Sad to see the Trust giving up the ghost. Or trying to. |
Well if you're the font of all knowledge and all things common sense, join the Trust, run for election and sort them out... |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:41 - Jul 5 with 1651 views | Phil_S |
| Interesting Trust Email on 10:01 - Jul 5 by Algorfajack |
Hi Ux, I have contacted the trust about this on the 30th June, still awaiting a reply.
Subsequently, I PM'd Phil & fair play he responded swiftly informing me that they are extremely busy with people contacting them & that I should get a response either that day or the following day. That was on July 3rd but no response as yet.
I |
The responses sit with me to reply at the moment but had to attend a funeral yesterday and now at our half year conference - will try and get a response today but it may drag a little
The short answer for you is Alan has your information to hand and will ensure you get the chance to vote but I will come back with more detail |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:57 - Jul 5 with 1618 views | Algorfajack |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:41 - Jul 5 by Phil_S |
The responses sit with me to reply at the moment but had to attend a funeral yesterday and now at our half year conference - will try and get a response today but it may drag a little
The short answer for you is Alan has your information to hand and will ensure you get the chance to vote but I will come back with more detail |
Hi Phil,
Not having a dig about response time as you had answered my query adequately. Was more to inform SwanNZ that the trust were extremely busy.
Having read back over my post, I can only say sorry for the way it was worded
Also like to add that I had a reply from Alan this morning & answered my query completely, thanks [Post edited 5 Jul 2017 14:00]
| |
| Prediction league winner 2016-2017 aka llanedeyrnjack |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:59 - Jul 5 with 1609 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:33 - Jul 5 by waynekerr55 |
Well if you're the font of all knowledge and all things common sense, join the Trust, run for election and sort them out... |
I'm certainly not the font of all knowledge
What's your view? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:00 - Jul 5 with 1607 views | MattG |
| Interesting Trust Email on 12:37 - Jul 5 by swancity |
Why is relegation more likely if legal action is taken, as a last resort, simply to acquire what is yours in any event ?
That's a bold statement. And inaccurate in my view. |
Questions have already been asked about whether the current offer (circa £5½m) will be paid for by the Club or by the Americans (or their consortium) themselves - the best information we have is that it will not be paid for by the Club which is good news.
The likely remedy for the Trust winning a legal battle would be a purchase of the entire Trust shareholding - let's say £22m. Because of the significantly higher cost, it's not inconceivable the Americans could decide to use the Club to fund that purchase. To ensure the money is available, they might reduce spending on players, thereby directly impacting on our chances of staying in the PL.
Totally hypothetical but is it any more or less likely than the Americans funding the full £22m out of their own pockets? |  | | |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:03 - Jul 5 with 1590 views | waynekerr55 |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:59 - Jul 5 by swancity |
I'm certainly not the font of all knowledge
What's your view? |
Need more info to form a judgement, to be honest. One thing that needs clarification is the offer. Is it the first? Tenth? I do worry that the remedy at court may not be of the magnitude that it should be. | |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:05 - Jul 5 with 1582 views | NOTRAC |
That is a brilliant summary by Uxbridge.The aims haven't really changed though.The new investors want to make money out of the club.The old investors wanted and made money out of the club.
To make money the club has to continue to be successful.
The Trust has different ideals.Whilst money is very important it has limited uses as far as the Trust is concerned.What is more important is that we as members are kept informed of what happens.The Trust has a very important part to play by continuing to be involved with the new investors.That way they can monitor what happens, and possibly on occasions influence.
That is why I will be voting to accept the proposition, [Post edited 5 Jul 2017 14:07]
| |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:06 - Jul 5 with 1573 views | Darran |
| Interesting Trust Email on 13:59 - Jul 5 by swancity |
I'm certainly not the font of all knowledge
What's your view? |
It is funny mind that the lippiest twáts aren't members and have no interest in standing for election.
 |  |
| |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:09 - Jul 5 with 1567 views | swancity |
| Interesting Trust Email on 14:00 - Jul 5 by MattG |
Questions have already been asked about whether the current offer (circa £5½m) will be paid for by the Club or by the Americans (or their consortium) themselves - the best information we have is that it will not be paid for by the Club which is good news.
The likely remedy for the Trust winning a legal battle would be a purchase of the entire Trust shareholding - let's say £22m. Because of the significantly higher cost, it's not inconceivable the Americans could decide to use the Club to fund that purchase. To ensure the money is available, they might reduce spending on players, thereby directly impacting on our chances of staying in the PL.
Totally hypothetical but is it any more or less likely than the Americans funding the full £22m out of their own pockets? |
I thought the football club ie Swansea City FC Ltd was a different legal entity? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
