| Hello the Trust 11:13 - Jul 19 with 7539 views | DafyddHuw |
I sent you the following question last week, and although you say you'll repond within 48 hrs, I'm still waiting.
So I'll try to get your attention on here -
The candidates for election to the Trust board - how do I find out what their ttitude are to the deal/litigate situation?
I don'r care if they speak Welsh, are MDs of companies or have supporteed the Swans since they were foetuses. But I do want to know what their attitude to our owners is.
Surely in any other type of election we'd have some concept of what candidates stood for. How can I vote for someone when I know feck all about their attitude to the club?
|  | | |  |
| Hello the Trust on 08:47 - Jul 20 with 805 views | costalotta |
| Hello the Trust on 19:49 - Jul 19 by E20Jack |
I am not sure what you mean by that?
If the day comes when the Trust are able to take over the club, or at least buy a majority stake in the club. The club would need to be League 1 I'd have thought at the £21m price. But that could happen (back to back relegations) whether the Trust stay in their token seat or not.
A takeover by the Trust would then guarantee the club never falls into these kinds of hands again, a £5m payoff as a "keep quiet please" bribe, would put a stop to the notion of that ever happening in the future, which of course means the club continues a lifetime of uncertainty.
If it never comes to that then surely that is good news not bad? It means the club is doing well and thus retaining its value.
I cant think of a single reason why litigation would be a bad move. We have little to no influence or voice now as it is. Why on earth would we contemplate throwing away the chance to secure the clubs future for an amount that achieves diddly squat for anyone? [Post edited 19 Jul 2017 20:06]
|
If you read what I wrote you'd read that I said it wouldn't be good if t Trust took over the club for 21m. Same as you...I didn't add the bit about being in league 1 (or similar) as I thought that would be obvious.
On t point of full Trust ownership I would not agree with it as things stand now. This is not meant to offend anyone...IMO There is just not enough collective intelligence football or business amongst those that represent us as history illustrates. There is so much to to learn and we are not nor ever will be like a Bayern or Barca with that kind of fan ownership. The fan ownership (100%) to stop us being owned by who? In the U.K. That model will not work.
I say that but I've not renewed my membership and will continue to abstain. |  | | |
| Hello the Trust on 09:05 - Jul 20 with 781 views | Nookiejack |
Vincent Tan appears to be prepared to sell Cardiff for £30m
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/631067/Cardiff-Vincent-Tan-sell-30mill
Don't know whether you then will have to take any net debt on as well over current player valuations.
Although an investor may be able to reduce the £30m down.
This is what the £23m will allow you to do in the future. Potentially take control of our club.
Please ask yourself what say does the Trust really have now? The recommended approach is just a comestic exercise - hold the stake for sale of holding the stake - but it will be bought off the Trust when the Drag rights are taken up.
Think how disastrous that could be. We get relegated go into a downward spiral and the remaining 16% stake will be acquired off the Trust (when the Drag rights are acquired) for a few pence in the £.
The Trust thinks it has recommended the risk free option - however in reality they are running the most risk by not taking legal action. |  | | |
| Hello the Trust on 09:09 - Jul 20 with 778 views | Nookiejack |
The Trust really needs to make clear for the large constituency of members who just want the Trust to keep a stake - what the concession of the 'Drag' rights mean.
If a new owner wants to buy 100% of the club and make a suitable offer to the Yanks - then the Trust will be dragged along and will have to seek the remaining stake.
The Trust will not be able to do anything about this.
Do all members understand this? | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 09:23 - Jul 20 with 753 views | JENKINSOUT |
| Hello the Trust on 09:09 - Jul 20 by Nookiejack |
The Trust really needs to make clear for the large constituency of members who just want the Trust to keep a stake - what the concession of the 'Drag' rights mean.
If a new owner wants to buy 100% of the club and make a suitable offer to the Yanks - then the Trust will be dragged along and will have to seek the remaining stake.
The Trust will not be able to do anything about this.
Do all members understand this? |
first I dont understand why anyone who disagrees with the way things are being run sees the logical follow up to be not joining if ever there was a guaranteed way for change to never happen then that is it. stupid and makes no sense
nookiejack I hope you have stood for election as you can offer so much but you do need to take a step back and think about this
1. Your concerns on drag rights are correct. However, if the Trust give it away for a few pence in the pound then so do the Americans. Why they would invest £70m to give it away is beyond me
2. You will no doubt make reference to your favourite subject of management fees which of course will be visible in the monthly accounts that the trust is eligible to see (and from what I have read they do see) you want to sell a stake to take that right away and ensure that all the damage can be done behind closed doors but its ok as we may have some cash to put it right. Feck me I am glad you dont run a business if that is your model
3. The deal on the table is awful. the real solution is in the middle - make the 10.5% sale a guaranteed deal and all the legal action goes away bar from the terminally stupid people who think that just because someone said "strong case" then its a guaranteed win when in reality it isn't far from it
4. Why people see it necessary to slag those that at least have the bottle to try is beyond me, spineless to the core.
5. My email last night said that the information is on its way so it is time for the members to vote - we know where the likes of nookie etc will vote but reality is they are a very vocal minority on here
6. David Little at the last trust forum confirmed that the trust board could have made the decision themselves as the constitution says they should. but we are told they are a closed shop so they have opened it up when they didn't have to. Thats not very closed now is it
7. For the election I voted for Matthew Griffiths, Roger Goodwin, Stuart McDonald, Sian Davies and Andrew Godden - I haven't cast my full votes as I think the board needs a change | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 09:26 - Jul 20 with 748 views | costalotta |
| Hello the Trust on 09:09 - Jul 20 by Nookiejack |
The Trust really needs to make clear for the large constituency of members who just want the Trust to keep a stake - what the concession of the 'Drag' rights mean.
If a new owner wants to buy 100% of the club and make a suitable offer to the Yanks - then the Trust will be dragged along and will have to seek the remaining stake.
The Trust will not be able to do anything about this.
Do all members understand this? |
You ask about the members understaning it, I must admit it didn't cross my mind. What about the Trust Board, do they / did they understand this? | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 09:28 - Jul 20 with 741 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 08:47 - Jul 20 by costalotta |
If you read what I wrote you'd read that I said it wouldn't be good if t Trust took over the club for 21m. Same as you...I didn't add the bit about being in league 1 (or similar) as I thought that would be obvious.
On t point of full Trust ownership I would not agree with it as things stand now. This is not meant to offend anyone...IMO There is just not enough collective intelligence football or business amongst those that represent us as history illustrates. There is so much to to learn and we are not nor ever will be like a Bayern or Barca with that kind of fan ownership. The fan ownership (100%) to stop us being owned by who? In the U.K. That model will not work.
I say that but I've not renewed my membership and will continue to abstain. |
I read it a few times yesterday, couldnt make head nor tail of what you were trying to say on the point I highlighted I am afraid.
Of course complete fan ownership would be extremely good news. I doubt anybody is advocating current Trust members being key figures in the running of the club. However if allows the Trust to employ a world class sporting MD and pay a competitive salary, same goes for marketing manager, social media team, promotions team etc etc (basically just what any other owners do).
The 100% fan ownership model stops us getting owned by tycoons, wanting to profit off the club and make decisions based on return rather than the prosperity of the club. |  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 09:33 - Jul 20 with 735 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 08:32 - Jul 20 by monmouth |
It's a right bastard. I still haven't really made my mind up. If anything, I'm writing quite strongly for legal action hoping that I can be persuaded against it by the counter arguments. What was the old Irish joke....if I were you, I wouldn't start from here... |
Ha. True enough.
Funnily enough, I suspect our starting positions and rationales aren't all that different. Because of the very nature of all this I've had somewhat longer to have my own internal arguments before coming to a conclusion. That whole inner debate and trying to make sure it's the right decision from my perspective is part of the reason I've got involved in this debate on here.
Totally get it's not as easy a decision as it could be, which an offer with even a couple of relatively minor but important revisions could achieve. That point has been made to them. There'll be some clauses that some people find beyond the pale.
I'll only be going over old ground by stating my reasons for voting in favour of the deal, so I won't. However there'll be a couple of hefty documents hitting your doorstep in the near future, one of which will try to outline the strengths, weaknesses, potential outcomes, factors to consider etc of each of the three options. I'd urge all members to read those and come to their own conclusions. I think they're pretty comprehensive. |  |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 09:35 - Jul 20 with 730 views | Dewi1jack |
| Hello the Trust on 08:32 - Jul 20 by monmouth |
It's a right bastard. I still haven't really made my mind up. If anything, I'm writing quite strongly for legal action hoping that I can be persuaded against it by the counter arguments. What was the old Irish joke....if I were you, I wouldn't start from here... |
Got to agree Monny.
I can only see the downside to accepting what I believe to be a bad deal.
I am fairly sure, maybe to about 85-90% that the Merrycans will come back with a much improved offer if the vote came back for litigation.
The Trust should be using every media outlet, even the Clubs owned journo (Wathan/ wales on line and the SWEP) if they can, to publicise the sh1te they and us have been stitched up with and the shenanigans of the sellout vermin.
Legal action won't take down the sellers. I think everyone with half a brain accepts that point now.
Only way to get back at them is to make it too uncomfy for them in the ground so they just walk away.
But being offered crumbs compared to the vermin sellers stinks.
Drag rights?
What if the club is sold at a £1 plus debt again?
"We'll give you a bit of cash for your shares providing we stay up in the PL"
What happens once we're relegated? Nothing?
No extra cash and still no voice.
Personally, I've been accepting that we're possibly relegated every season. Saw 2 under Tosh then a collapse and have sort of been accepting that the same would happen again.
I love watching us beat the likes of Liverpool, Utd etc but will still be there if we're struggling against the likes of Newport, Halifax, Wrexham or whoever is in the bottom division
"We'll give you a meaningful voice"
Showed that when challenged about the friendly ticket prices (providing we accept that the Trust challenged them- I do.)
No voice that's going to be listened and a crap deal with it loaded so heavily in the Yanks favour.
"We sell the club- you have no say but have to sell your shares by agreement. But we'll give you a few quid to make up for it"
That seems to me to be the offer on the table.
I too am baffled at the rush and what seems a very heavy push by the wording used to accept it |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hello the Trust on 09:39 - Jul 20 with 725 views | costalotta |
| Hello the Trust on 09:28 - Jul 20 by E20Jack |
I read it a few times yesterday, couldnt make head nor tail of what you were trying to say on the point I highlighted I am afraid.
Of course complete fan ownership would be extremely good news. I doubt anybody is advocating current Trust members being key figures in the running of the club. However if allows the Trust to employ a world class sporting MD and pay a competitive salary, same goes for marketing manager, social media team, promotions team etc etc (basically just what any other owners do).
The 100% fan ownership model stops us getting owned by tycoons, wanting to profit off the club and make decisions based on return rather than the prosperity of the club. |
I basically said the sam as you without the hot air. I agree in principle but not on Trust ownership and the points you make on this are very valid (the future set up etc). I just don't think it would happen and even if it did the staring point you describe I'm not convinced it would be viable. Ok? | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 09:41 - Jul 20 with 722 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 09:26 - Jul 20 by costalotta |
You ask about the members understaning it, I must admit it didn't cross my mind. What about the Trust Board, do they / did they understand this? |
This is why I said in my post that the Trust may have to give their stake away for pennies.
Someone asked above why the Americans would accept a lowball offer. The Americans can make their money back by awarding themselves massive consultancy fees and salaries. They can also be very dirty and set up a phoenix consortium and sell the club to that consortium for £1 and they then acquire 100% of the club with the drag rights, and the trust get 16p for the rest of their 16%.
It is by far the riskiest option and am very angry that is not being presented as such when the alternative says we have a good chance of being able to secure the clubs future for the rest of eternity - the ultimate goal.
The downside if we lose (unlikely) - We still keep 21%, we use the money already banked (700k?) that isnt enough to do anything meaningful with anyway for legal fees, and the Americans can continue to ignore us (just like they can even if we accept the measly offer).
makes zero sense. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 09:42 - Jul 20 with 720 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 09:26 - Jul 20 by costalotta |
You ask about the members understaning it, I must admit it didn't cross my mind. What about the Trust Board, do they / did they understand this? |
Of course they do.
There are two rights here, whilst Nookie is focusing only on one of them.
Under this deal, the Trust will gain tag along rights. This means the Trust have the right to be involved in any future sale. If the Americans sell in the future, then the Trust can sell at the exact same share price. We don't have that today. That's a big deal, as has been pointed out a lot in the past, the Trust's shareholding is its own little island without this ... it could be passed over in perpetuity. Without that, you would have to question what the Trust shareholding is worth, or for.
On the flip side, this deal will give drag along rights to the Americans. That means that, if a future buyer wants to buy out the Trust, the Trust could be forced to sell. Few points to note here - again, that sale would be at the same price as the Americans. What that price would be we can't know now, we can only speculate. We also don't know what a future buyer would want to do. Given the last 12 months, would a future buyer want to take the PR hit of jettisoning the fans? It's far from guaranteed, but it is entirely possible? Also, we have no idea when that could take place - this may be 3, 5 or 10 years time. Somewhere in the middle I'd suspect. In the meantime, the Trust retains its influence and access ... however you judge the worth of that.
For me, the benefits of the tag along rights far exceed the potential downside of the drag along rights. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 09:44 - Jul 20 with 711 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 09:39 - Jul 20 by costalotta |
I basically said the sam as you without the hot air. I agree in principle but not on Trust ownership and the points you make on this are very valid (the future set up etc). I just don't think it would happen and even if it did the staring point you describe I'm not convinced it would be viable. Ok? |
No hot air from me. I'm not sure you did say the same as me as it seems you were not even aware of the drag rights, which is largely a contributor to my post.
Why do you not think that the Trust could acquire the club with £21m in the future? and what do you not think is viable?
The Trust is no different from any other consortium that takes over football clubs every single season, except their goal is to improve the club not their bank balance. Surely that makes them a more viable option than a less viable one? | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 09:50 - Jul 20 with 699 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 09:41 - Jul 20 by E20Jack |
This is why I said in my post that the Trust may have to give their stake away for pennies.
Someone asked above why the Americans would accept a lowball offer. The Americans can make their money back by awarding themselves massive consultancy fees and salaries. They can also be very dirty and set up a phoenix consortium and sell the club to that consortium for £1 and they then acquire 100% of the club with the drag rights, and the trust get 16p for the rest of their 16%.
It is by far the riskiest option and am very angry that is not being presented as such when the alternative says we have a good chance of being able to secure the clubs future for the rest of eternity - the ultimate goal.
The downside if we lose (unlikely) - We still keep 21%, we use the money already banked (700k?) that isnt enough to do anything meaningful with anyway for legal fees, and the Americans can continue to ignore us (just like they can even if we accept the measly offer).
makes zero sense. |
If we lose the legal case, the Trust wouldn't have £700k in the bank. It probably wouldn't have anything. In fact, there's every chance legal fees would wipe out any existing Trust funds or worse. In fact what happens if the legal fees stretch beyond the money the Trust has?
That second paragraph, whilst being largely fantasy and introducing several theories that are, if not outright illegal (which I'd leave to the lawyers, but I suspect would be), at the very least are so outrageously prejudicial to the other minority shareholders (not just the Trust) that would never stand up in court. However you have brought up an interesting point regarding why the Trust keeping a stake is a good thing ... while it retains that stake, such actions would not be open to the Americans without being unfairly prejudicial to those minority shareholders. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 09:55 - Jul 20 with 685 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 09:05 - Jul 20 by Nookiejack |
Vincent Tan appears to be prepared to sell Cardiff for £30m
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/631067/Cardiff-Vincent-Tan-sell-30mill
Don't know whether you then will have to take any net debt on as well over current player valuations.
Although an investor may be able to reduce the £30m down.
This is what the £23m will allow you to do in the future. Potentially take control of our club.
Please ask yourself what say does the Trust really have now? The recommended approach is just a comestic exercise - hold the stake for sale of holding the stake - but it will be bought off the Trust when the Drag rights are taken up.
Think how disastrous that could be. We get relegated go into a downward spiral and the remaining 16% stake will be acquired off the Trust (when the Drag rights are acquired) for a few pence in the £.
The Trust thinks it has recommended the risk free option - however in reality they are running the most risk by not taking legal action. |
A few things to point out here:
a) The basseys were in about £100m or so of debt last time I checked. If you don't know if that's being written off as part of this deal, then the rest of your comments are pretty much compromised there and then.
b) The Trust won't have £23m in the bank, even if everything in a legal case went exactly as you want. Not after tax.
c) £23m, £18m or whatever is significantly less than £30m. In fact the only way the Trust could ever hope to get £30m is to sell its shares at a higher price in the future.
c) Nobody on the Trust thinks the offer is a risk free approach. All options have different risks. I'm surprised the risks of legal action haven't received the same level of review from some quarters ... | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 09:56 - Jul 20 with 682 views | Nookiejack |
| Hello the Trust on 09:23 - Jul 20 by JENKINSOUT |
first I dont understand why anyone who disagrees with the way things are being run sees the logical follow up to be not joining if ever there was a guaranteed way for change to never happen then that is it. stupid and makes no sense
nookiejack I hope you have stood for election as you can offer so much but you do need to take a step back and think about this
1. Your concerns on drag rights are correct. However, if the Trust give it away for a few pence in the pound then so do the Americans. Why they would invest £70m to give it away is beyond me
2. You will no doubt make reference to your favourite subject of management fees which of course will be visible in the monthly accounts that the trust is eligible to see (and from what I have read they do see) you want to sell a stake to take that right away and ensure that all the damage can be done behind closed doors but its ok as we may have some cash to put it right. Feck me I am glad you dont run a business if that is your model
3. The deal on the table is awful. the real solution is in the middle - make the 10.5% sale a guaranteed deal and all the legal action goes away bar from the terminally stupid people who think that just because someone said "strong case" then its a guaranteed win when in reality it isn't far from it
4. Why people see it necessary to slag those that at least have the bottle to try is beyond me, spineless to the core.
5. My email last night said that the information is on its way so it is time for the members to vote - we know where the likes of nookie etc will vote but reality is they are a very vocal minority on here
6. David Little at the last trust forum confirmed that the trust board could have made the decision themselves as the constitution says they should. but we are told they are a closed shop so they have opened it up when they didn't have to. Thats not very closed now is it
7. For the election I voted for Matthew Griffiths, Roger Goodwin, Stuart McDonald, Sian Davies and Andrew Godden - I haven't cast my full votes as I think the board needs a change |
Re:1
Randy Lerner cut his losses at Villa.
How long will it be before Venky's cut their losses at Blackburn? If they do they will sell at a few pence in the £.
Relegation and downward spiral is a realistic scenario. It has a high chance. Circa 30% of happening this coming season.
Re : 2
The Trust didn't receive Management Accounts for months after the takeover. When the threat of litigation is taken away - what is to stop the Yanks similarly delaying sending the Management Accounts to the Trust - if some bad financial news came out - or if the Yanks decided to pay themselves a large management fee offshore to their company in Delaware for example?
Re : 3
The Trust should be made the same offer as the other selling shareholders. By the Yanks not doing treats the Trust and the fans with contempt. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 09:57 - Jul 20 with 680 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 09:50 - Jul 20 by Uxbridge |
If we lose the legal case, the Trust wouldn't have £700k in the bank. It probably wouldn't have anything. In fact, there's every chance legal fees would wipe out any existing Trust funds or worse. In fact what happens if the legal fees stretch beyond the money the Trust has?
That second paragraph, whilst being largely fantasy and introducing several theories that are, if not outright illegal (which I'd leave to the lawyers, but I suspect would be), at the very least are so outrageously prejudicial to the other minority shareholders (not just the Trust) that would never stand up in court. However you have brought up an interesting point regarding why the Trust keeping a stake is a good thing ... while it retains that stake, such actions would not be open to the Americans without being unfairly prejudicial to those minority shareholders. |
Thats exactly what I said. The downside of losing the case is we use the money the Trust have acquired to this point (an amount that is not enough to be meaningful in any other way). There is no chance the legal fees will stretch beyond 700k, of that I can be certain.
Nothing is fantasy Uxbridge, not palatable maybe, but certainly not fantasy. There is absolutely nothing illegal about selling a business for whatever price you deem acceptable, especially if a company is making a loss (which we did last year). Clearly it will not be Levien and Kaplan on the name of the other consortium so there is no illegality. Ironically you then state the Trust will have been prejudiced (and assume that legal action will remedy it).
I think the biggest fantasy in this whole charade is that The Trust has a meaningful voice or any kind of influence in the running of the club what so ever. The Trust stated they made their feelings known regarding the ridiculous pricing of the friendly game... if they cant even influence a price change for a friendly then I think the notion the organisation has any influence over actual important club matters is laughable. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 10:01 - Jul 20 with 669 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 09:55 - Jul 20 by Uxbridge |
A few things to point out here:
a) The basseys were in about £100m or so of debt last time I checked. If you don't know if that's being written off as part of this deal, then the rest of your comments are pretty much compromised there and then.
b) The Trust won't have £23m in the bank, even if everything in a legal case went exactly as you want. Not after tax.
c) £23m, £18m or whatever is significantly less than £30m. In fact the only way the Trust could ever hope to get £30m is to sell its shares at a higher price in the future.
c) Nobody on the Trust thinks the offer is a risk free approach. All options have different risks. I'm surprised the risks of legal action haven't received the same level of review from some quarters ... |
That is assuming you only want 100% ownership in the club, which as we know isnt worth the paper it is written on.
75.1% will be enough for a controlling majority stake in a football club. £22.6m is enough to acquire a majority controlling stake in a club valued at £30m.
Sensible investment with the interest that £18m generates should see the club reach that figure with the correct advice and guidance. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 10:04 - Jul 20 with 668 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 09:57 - Jul 20 by E20Jack |
Thats exactly what I said. The downside of losing the case is we use the money the Trust have acquired to this point (an amount that is not enough to be meaningful in any other way). There is no chance the legal fees will stretch beyond 700k, of that I can be certain.
Nothing is fantasy Uxbridge, not palatable maybe, but certainly not fantasy. There is absolutely nothing illegal about selling a business for whatever price you deem acceptable, especially if a company is making a loss (which we did last year). Clearly it will not be Levien and Kaplan on the name of the other consortium so there is no illegality. Ironically you then state the Trust will have been prejudiced (and assume that legal action will remedy it).
I think the biggest fantasy in this whole charade is that The Trust has a meaningful voice or any kind of influence in the running of the club what so ever. The Trust stated they made their feelings known regarding the ridiculous pricing of the friendly game... if they cant even influence a price change for a friendly then I think the notion the organisation has any influence over actual important club matters is laughable. |
How can you possibly be certain of that? The Trust have incurred somewhere between £40k and £50k in legal fees to date, just receiving advice. Preparing a case will cost so many more times that. Plus, if the Trust lost, there's every chance it could be forced to pay the other sides costs too. I can't imagine, hell I know because we know the firm they use, that the Americans' will be using some bloke down Mansel St.
No, it's fantasy. You may not think it is, but it is. Making stuff up like that does nobody any favours. There's enough with the facts to argue the toss either way without doing that. If you'd stuck at salaries and fees then you'd have had a point worthy of considering. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 10:04 - Jul 20 with 665 views | costalotta |
| Hello the Trust on 09:44 - Jul 20 by E20Jack |
No hot air from me. I'm not sure you did say the same as me as it seems you were not even aware of the drag rights, which is largely a contributor to my post.
Why do you not think that the Trust could acquire the club with £21m in the future? and what do you not think is viable?
The Trust is no different from any other consortium that takes over football clubs every single season, except their goal is to improve the club not their bank balance. Surely that makes them a more viable option than a less viable one? |
Er...no. I didn't say the trust couldnt buy the club for 21m in the future. I said if that happens it won't be good IMO as it likely means we'd have failed and have dropped leagues. I also said I'd rather there was not 100% fan ownership you cannot run anything by committee and that model is outdated and frankly doesn't work. But that's just my view.
I never mentioned drag rights nor did I comment on them as they not relevant to the point I was making.
I don't think it's viable because we do not have a big enough fan base for it be viable. Think of the gene pool not being big enough to produce the talent needed to run as you state. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 10:06 - Jul 20 with 658 views | Nookiejack |
| Hello the Trust on 09:55 - Jul 20 by Uxbridge |
A few things to point out here:
a) The basseys were in about £100m or so of debt last time I checked. If you don't know if that's being written off as part of this deal, then the rest of your comments are pretty much compromised there and then.
b) The Trust won't have £23m in the bank, even if everything in a legal case went exactly as you want. Not after tax.
c) £23m, £18m or whatever is significantly less than £30m. In fact the only way the Trust could ever hope to get £30m is to sell its shares at a higher price in the future.
c) Nobody on the Trust thinks the offer is a risk free approach. All options have different risks. I'm surprised the risks of legal action haven't received the same level of review from some quarters ... |
(A) I did qualify the debt point - although there have previously been debates on here about the Cardiff City accounts where Tan was restructuring the debt. He was apparently writing a lot of it off. (Blueytheblue appeared to be the expert on this)
Still very surprised about your disclosure about tax. Where did that suddenly come from? Given Trust has previously not paid any tax.
Not sure whether HMRC would agree that any gain could be rolled back into a future reinvestment in the club. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 10:07 - Jul 20 with 653 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 10:01 - Jul 20 by E20Jack |
That is assuming you only want 100% ownership in the club, which as we know isnt worth the paper it is written on.
75.1% will be enough for a controlling majority stake in a football club. £22.6m is enough to acquire a majority controlling stake in a club valued at £30m.
Sensible investment with the interest that £18m generates should see the club reach that figure with the correct advice and guidance. |
Why would someone be willing to sell a controlling stake, keeping a minority stake for themselves?
£18m may be enough. £5m may be enough. £10m may be enough. £30m may be enough. Who knows. This idea that £18m is a magic amount that will allow the Trust to achieve the aim of total ownership in the future really should be challenged. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 10:08 - Jul 20 with 649 views | costalotta |
| Hello the Trust on 09:42 - Jul 20 by Uxbridge |
Of course they do.
There are two rights here, whilst Nookie is focusing only on one of them.
Under this deal, the Trust will gain tag along rights. This means the Trust have the right to be involved in any future sale. If the Americans sell in the future, then the Trust can sell at the exact same share price. We don't have that today. That's a big deal, as has been pointed out a lot in the past, the Trust's shareholding is its own little island without this ... it could be passed over in perpetuity. Without that, you would have to question what the Trust shareholding is worth, or for.
On the flip side, this deal will give drag along rights to the Americans. That means that, if a future buyer wants to buy out the Trust, the Trust could be forced to sell. Few points to note here - again, that sale would be at the same price as the Americans. What that price would be we can't know now, we can only speculate. We also don't know what a future buyer would want to do. Given the last 12 months, would a future buyer want to take the PR hit of jettisoning the fans? It's far from guaranteed, but it is entirely possible? Also, we have no idea when that could take place - this may be 3, 5 or 10 years time. Somewhere in the middle I'd suspect. In the meantime, the Trust retains its influence and access ... however you judge the worth of that.
For me, the benefits of the tag along rights far exceed the potential downside of the drag along rights. |
Fair comment. | | | |
| Hello the Trust on 10:13 - Jul 20 with 637 views | Uxbridge |
| Hello the Trust on 10:06 - Jul 20 by Nookiejack |
(A) I did qualify the debt point - although there have previously been debates on here about the Cardiff City accounts where Tan was restructuring the debt. He was apparently writing a lot of it off. (Blueytheblue appeared to be the expert on this)
Still very surprised about your disclosure about tax. Where did that suddenly come from? Given Trust has previously not paid any tax.
Not sure whether HMRC would agree that any gain could be rolled back into a future reinvestment in the club. |
Suddenly? You were posting in those threads mun. Iesu mawr.
You may not like the Trust's tax status, but you not liking it isn't a basis for it changing I'm afraid.
As for our friend Tan, you don't know either. However, I'd wager that he's not going to write that off. Why would he? He'd be mad to. He's not exactly got a history for philanthropy. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 10:14 - Jul 20 with 633 views | E20Jack |
| Hello the Trust on 10:04 - Jul 20 by Uxbridge |
How can you possibly be certain of that? The Trust have incurred somewhere between £40k and £50k in legal fees to date, just receiving advice. Preparing a case will cost so many more times that. Plus, if the Trust lost, there's every chance it could be forced to pay the other sides costs too. I can't imagine, hell I know because we know the firm they use, that the Americans' will be using some bloke down Mansel St.
No, it's fantasy. You may not think it is, but it is. Making stuff up like that does nobody any favours. There's enough with the facts to argue the toss either way without doing that. If you'd stuck at salaries and fees then you'd have had a point worthy of considering. |
Because I know what similar cases cost. It will not exceed 700k, as I said of that I am certain.
Nope, again you can say its fantasy but it is clearly not, you just don't like the outcome. Conceding the drag rights make it entirely possible. There is absolutely no reason the Americans can not decide to acquire all of The Trusts shares for pennies. none.
Again the irony being your response to that is that there is protection via a court case based on prejudice... you know, like the one the QC said we have a good chance of winning now... the one you claim we may not be able to afford.
You are blowing smoke up the memberships behinds in weighted language, selective explanations and very unhelpful heavy recommendations.
Again, a complete blank on the obvious elephant in the room regarding the current lack of any sort of influence. no surprise there. | |
| |
| Hello the Trust on 10:14 - Jul 20 with 632 views | Nookiejack |
| Hello the Trust on 10:04 - Jul 20 by costalotta |
Er...no. I didn't say the trust couldnt buy the club for 21m in the future. I said if that happens it won't be good IMO as it likely means we'd have failed and have dropped leagues. I also said I'd rather there was not 100% fan ownership you cannot run anything by committee and that model is outdated and frankly doesn't work. But that's just my view.
I never mentioned drag rights nor did I comment on them as they not relevant to the point I was making.
I don't think it's viable because we do not have a big enough fan base for it be viable. Think of the gene pool not being big enough to produce the talent needed to run as you state. |
I don't understand why fan ownership is outdated?
Isn't most of the Bundesliga fan ownership?
Aren't Real Madrid and Barcelona fan owned?
Wouldn't we also be different?
We don't currently know who stands behind the Yanks Delaware investment vehicle?
We don't know who they might eventually sell to? What happens if they decide to sell to a Vincent Tan type character? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
