| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? 20:33 - Oct 28 with 12518 views | NickyJack |
There's lot of anger towards Jenkins at the moment but what about the owners? Here me out. He was the owner of the club for 12 /13 years and no one can deny the excellent job he did. Perhaps we would still be in the lower divisions without him. Then when he and the rest of them sold their shares, which I agree was a mistake but I genuinely believe that he meant the best for the club and that he thought someone with more money would be better suited and/or just didn't want the stress of it anymore. Some would say he cashed in and left it to someone else but I don't see it like that. HOWEVER, the yanks promised they would take the club to the next level (we were a mid-table side at the time, so therefore challenging for Europe) and have spent NO MONEY OF THEIR OWN WHATSOEVER. Last season, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as it was new to them But this season, its not honest mistakes, it's ignorance. According to this ( http://www.transferleague.co.uk/swansea/english-football-teams/swansea-city-tran since they took over, our net spend has been NEGATIVE £33 MILLION. I appreciate there are expenses other than buying players, but it should never be that low. We have sold player upon player for big bucks and not spent the money to replace them, and the big signings we have made have been utter sh*t. The single biggest reason for our decline has been lack of investment and poor recruitment, so surely our anger should be equally, if not more, towards the yanks? |  | | |  |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:51 - Oct 28 with 3478 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:47 - Oct 28 by SwansNZ |
I can’t say I feel that much anger towards the new owners, they are doing what the do — no surprise really. The new owners are investors, out to make money, nothing else. If they make money, they will be successful at what they do. They have no loyalty or real feeling towards the Swans, why would they? Jenkins and the gang on the other hand, could and should have done better. In the end, they just saw the US$$ and nothing else mattered. |
Agree with your first point fully. Although I don't know why Jenkins and co are any different really? Over half the board weren't even from Wales were they?
Could they have done things differently? Of course they could. But at the end of the day they were in it to make money and acted just in that way - just like any owners we have will.
This is why it is imperative that the Trust put themselves in a position to be able to do so in the future. |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:59 - Oct 28 with 3457 views | NickyJack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:44 - Oct 28 by E20Jack |
Right, and who comes in then?
Think about this for a second before replying. |
Good question, one of those arab blokes with a few dosh would be nice | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 22:15 - Oct 28 with 3427 views | Davillin |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:09 - Oct 28 by E20Jack |
You would need to ask the old shareholders that. They clearly didn't identify that as an issue, hence they would have done it. I would assume they couldn't work out what they needed in order to compete even at our own level. The Americans have a CV with former top level global sports clubs so their experience is obviously far greater than a roofer and a vending machine owner. |
I have long made it a practice to refrain from the temptation to respond to a post with a one-word negative and hopefully stinging retort, but the post above has made that exercise of restraint exceedingly difficult.
The list of possibilities is long and no doubt will get longer as the evening goes on.
I do not bother the divinity with pleas for personal help, so what's left is the exercise of self-control. Or writing a moaning post like this one. Preferably both.
Maybe a third to be added if I can think of one. |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 22:21 - Oct 28 with 3420 views | Yossarian |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:36 - Oct 28 by Humpty |
If he meant the best for the club why did he hide the sale from the trust? |
The question that ultimately damns him. The answer was that the Trust foiled the first attempt at a sale and Morgan, Jenkins and the others couldn’t take the risk that they’d be frustrated again. I think it is reasonable to say that on the basis of the evidence of the Yanks now, they put their own financial interests ahead of the club. They knew and know better- the Yanks do not. The Yanks can and will walk away from the carnage without losing a penny. Morgan, Jenkins and the others will have the rest of their lives to bear the contempt of people from their city who they badly let down. Mind you, they won’t be spending that much time here.... |  |
| "Yossarian- the very sight of the name made him shudder.There were so many esses in it. It just had to be subversive" (Catch 22) |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 22:27 - Oct 28 with 3410 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:59 - Oct 28 by NickyJack |
Good question, one of those arab blokes with a few dosh would be nice |
That's the problem. The solution is just a dream.
The only other way is to get the Trust to take over the club. So they need a maximum amount of money to acquire the club somewhere along the owner chain with as little damage done as possible.
Think of how much damage will have to be done to it to buy it for £5m... what they settled for. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 22:30 - Oct 28 with 3404 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 22:15 - Oct 28 by Davillin |
I have long made it a practice to refrain from the temptation to respond to a post with a one-word negative and hopefully stinging retort, but the post above has made that exercise of restraint exceedingly difficult.
The list of possibilities is long and no doubt will get longer as the evening goes on.
I do not bother the divinity with pleas for personal help, so what's left is the exercise of self-control. Or writing a moaning post like this one. Preferably both.
Maybe a third to be added if I can think of one. |
I think that is one for the journal Davillin,.
bizarre. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 06:28 - Oct 29 with 3336 views | Humpty |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:26 - Oct 28 by TheResurrection |
You'll have to keep reminding people which side of the fence you're on as you are seemingly jumping the fence with every post.
Pure greed? Yeah stick an emotive word like greed in there for full effect why don't you.
They had earned a right to make their money, they had more than earned that most basics of rights.
The shares, or £50k they invested was worth fack all to anyone for a long, long time.
It was them that turned that £50k into £5m and people on here, self facking righteous to the extreme, are trying to say they would have done something differently.
By the way, the off the field departments are twice as good as before and we're still there in the big league..... 7 years later. |
It was them that turned that £50k into £5m and people on here, self facking righteous to the extreme, are trying to say they would have done something differently.
I agree Chris. They did a very good job. And I don't think anyone on here argues against them getting their rewards.
However, some of us have a problem with the way they went about it. Which was the shittiest, most underhand way I could probably think possible.
You may think that's an understandable and completely ethical thing to do.
I don't. When they did that they stuck any kind of legacy they could have had right up our arses. And theirs.
If you want to defend that carry on. I won't. Ever.
I would have done something differently. That's the fundamental difference between me and you. [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 6:53]
|  | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 06:38 - Oct 29 with 3330 views | Humpty |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 06:28 - Oct 29 by Humpty |
It was them that turned that £50k into £5m and people on here, self facking righteous to the extreme, are trying to say they would have done something differently.
I agree Chris. They did a very good job. And I don't think anyone on here argues against them getting their rewards.
However, some of us have a problem with the way they went about it. Which was the shittiest, most underhand way I could probably think possible.
You may think that's an understandable and completely ethical thing to do.
I don't. When they did that they stuck any kind of legacy they could have had right up our arses. And theirs.
If you want to defend that carry on. I won't. Ever.
I would have done something differently. That's the fundamental difference between me and you. [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 6:53]
|
Xmastree seems to know what went on at that time.
Xmastree? Could you explain the reasoning behind that decison please? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 08:15 - Oct 29 with 3277 views | Bloodyhills |
It's possible that without Jenkins we might have stayed in the lower leagues but it's also looking highly likely that with him we will return to the lower leagues. He has proven himself good when we were a small club and clueless in the Prem. Small time business man out of his depth and corrupted by greed. |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 09:28 - Oct 29 with 3238 views | waynekerr55 |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 06:38 - Oct 29 by Humpty |
Xmastree seems to know what went on at that time.
Xmastree? Could you explain the reasoning behind that decison please? |
Xmastree has worked with members of the board. He knows their side of the story. If the issue goes to court no doubt the truth will come out. I know Cooze posts on here, I don't know the fella but I have a sneaky feeling he knew more than he's letting on. Why would you continue in situ as an employee when the previous owners hung him out to dry? |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 09:31 - Oct 29 with 3237 views | waynekerr55 |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 21:18 - Oct 28 by TheResurrection |
That is factually incorrect and maybe one of the main reasons why the Trust hasn't gone to Court. |
Mr Res - I've heard similar too. Have you been told that the Trust knew of the sale? | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 09:36 - Oct 29 with 3232 views | waynekerr55 |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 06:28 - Oct 29 by Humpty |
It was them that turned that £50k into £5m and people on here, self facking righteous to the extreme, are trying to say they would have done something differently.
I agree Chris. They did a very good job. And I don't think anyone on here argues against them getting their rewards.
However, some of us have a problem with the way they went about it. Which was the shittiest, most underhand way I could probably think possible.
You may think that's an understandable and completely ethical thing to do.
I don't. When they did that they stuck any kind of legacy they could have had right up our arses. And theirs.
If you want to defend that carry on. I won't. Ever.
I would have done something differently. That's the fundamental difference between me and you. [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 6:53]
|
And to add to this, has they said we are selling up as we have done all we can, 99.99% of our fans would have given them the credit they deserve. They deserve the cash but surely there was a better way to go about things? | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 10:49 - Oct 29 with 3193 views | Shaky |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 20:36 - Oct 28 by Humpty |
If he meant the best for the club why did he hide the sale from the trust? |
I'm obviously not privy to his thinking but here's one possible reason.
The club has been desperately in need of capital, since it got into the prem and competitive players started costing big bucks. That need has ballooned in recent years in line with transfer fees.
But the shareholders had no capital, and they could not invest what they didn't have.
Then the shareholders found the Moores mob who as far as I recall were willing to invest. But the Trust rejected that scheme out of hand and mobilised the fan base sufficiently to put them off.
Then Kaplan & Co turned up, and the position of the Trust changed. They were in favour of financing but opposed to new shares being sold because it would dilute their influence, and the issuance of debt because it would endanger the long term safety of the club.
Shares and debt being the only 2 forms of capital financing known to man.
in other words the Trust had formally adopted a Mickey Mouse position. And who wants to enter into a £100 million investment with Mickey Mouse as a partner?
The rest is history. Kaplan & Co may never put any new capital into the club, but at least they have the means if they want to, whereas the old lot did not.
A more adult approach from the Trust would have seen them recognise the legitimate objectives of the other shareholders (selling some shares and raising some new money) and working together to meet that objective. [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 10:54]
|  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 10:58 - Oct 29 with 3188 views | longlostjack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 09:31 - Oct 29 by waynekerr55 |
Mr Res - I've heard similar too. Have you been told that the Trust knew of the sale? |
If they knew why would they pay for legal advice which concluded that they had a strong case? |  |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:25 - Oct 29 with 3173 views | NOTRAC |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 10:49 - Oct 29 by Shaky |
I'm obviously not privy to his thinking but here's one possible reason.
The club has been desperately in need of capital, since it got into the prem and competitive players started costing big bucks. That need has ballooned in recent years in line with transfer fees.
But the shareholders had no capital, and they could not invest what they didn't have.
Then the shareholders found the Moores mob who as far as I recall were willing to invest. But the Trust rejected that scheme out of hand and mobilised the fan base sufficiently to put them off.
Then Kaplan & Co turned up, and the position of the Trust changed. They were in favour of financing but opposed to new shares being sold because it would dilute their influence, and the issuance of debt because it would endanger the long term safety of the club.
Shares and debt being the only 2 forms of capital financing known to man.
in other words the Trust had formally adopted a Mickey Mouse position. And who wants to enter into a £100 million investment with Mickey Mouse as a partner?
The rest is history. Kaplan & Co may never put any new capital into the club, but at least they have the means if they want to, whereas the old lot did not.
A more adult approach from the Trust would have seen them recognise the legitimate objectives of the other shareholders (selling some shares and raising some new money) and working together to meet that objective. [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 10:54]
|
I'm sorry Shaky ,but I can't believe a word of that . The reason they sold their shares was not to raise capital for the club, but to get the so called 'rewards' for their luck in owning shares that would make them millionaires .The haste was to sell while still in the Premiership.I don't think they cared at all about what happened to Swansea after the sale.The desire of them selling to raise capital for the club has been proved to be nonsense.
There were in fact a lot of shady actions which occurred well before we reached the Premiership.The transfer of Morgan's loans into equity at par value in 2007 for example, when there must already have been a premium on those shares.
The Trust were naive to allow it to happen.It meant that they could be outvoted afterwards by a majority of three shareholders instead of previously five. The fact that the Trust never pushed for a higher percentage at that time, was an appalling lack of judgement.
It has been said many times on here that the shareholders deserved their rewards because of their success.The intention at the beginning was to save a football club. There were people who put thousands into the Trust because they believed in those aims.One person put ten thousand into Trust funds.How does he feel now however.
There are rewards and there is greed.
These people were eventually motivated by greed. End of story. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:29 - Oct 29 with 3164 views | Shaky |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:25 - Oct 29 by NOTRAC |
I'm sorry Shaky ,but I can't believe a word of that . The reason they sold their shares was not to raise capital for the club, but to get the so called 'rewards' for their luck in owning shares that would make them millionaires .The haste was to sell while still in the Premiership.I don't think they cared at all about what happened to Swansea after the sale.The desire of them selling to raise capital for the club has been proved to be nonsense.
There were in fact a lot of shady actions which occurred well before we reached the Premiership.The transfer of Morgan's loans into equity at par value in 2007 for example, when there must already have been a premium on those shares.
The Trust were naive to allow it to happen.It meant that they could be outvoted afterwards by a majority of three shareholders instead of previously five. The fact that the Trust never pushed for a higher percentage at that time, was an appalling lack of judgement.
It has been said many times on here that the shareholders deserved their rewards because of their success.The intention at the beginning was to save a football club. There were people who put thousands into the Trust because they believed in those aims.One person put ten thousand into Trust funds.How does he feel now however.
There are rewards and there is greed.
These people were eventually motivated by greed. End of story. |
Bottom line Notrac is that the old shareholders did not have any capital to invest in the club, when it was in urgent need thereof.
Something had to give.
End of story. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:34 - Oct 29 with 3162 views | NOTRAC |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:29 - Oct 29 by Shaky |
Bottom line Notrac is that the old shareholders did not have any capital to invest in the club, when it was in urgent need thereof.
Something had to give.
End of story. |
What capital has been put into the club since? | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 12:21 - Oct 29 with 3131 views | Shaky |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 11:34 - Oct 29 by NOTRAC |
What capital has been put into the club since? |
As i said in the post you didn't - for as yet unexplained reasons - believe a word of:
"The rest is history. Kaplan & Co may never put any new capital into the club, but at least they have the means if they want to, whereas the old lot did not. " | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 16:58 - Oct 29 with 3056 views | xmastree |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 06:38 - Oct 29 by Humpty |
Xmastree seems to know what went on at that time.
Xmastree? Could you explain the reasoning behind that decison please? |
I could give it a fair stab from what i've heard but i'm not going to. Why ?. Because no one on this site has the slightest interest in hearing the truth if it conflicts with what they want to beleive.
I have no doubt it will all come out one day as i know for a fact many people have a fair idea of the actual facts and timelines. I'll leave it to one of them.
I'll just stick to commenting on football matters from now on but they will be limited as i don't go to many games anymore. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:06 - Oct 29 with 3044 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 16:58 - Oct 29 by xmastree |
I could give it a fair stab from what i've heard but i'm not going to. Why ?. Because no one on this site has the slightest interest in hearing the truth if it conflicts with what they want to beleive.
I have no doubt it will all come out one day as i know for a fact many people have a fair idea of the actual facts and timelines. I'll leave it to one of them.
I'll just stick to commenting on football matters from now on but they will be limited as i don't go to many games anymore. |
I will hear you out, assuming that your sentence was genuine and not posturing. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:23 - Oct 29 with 3024 views | xmastree |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:06 - Oct 29 by E20Jack |
I will hear you out, assuming that your sentence was genuine and not posturing. |
Im not posturing. I have been up front from the start about knowing some of them and therefore having an understanding of what went on. The abuse i got the other night means i have no appetite to say anything that might be seen to back the previous shareholders which now means that those on here unable to listen to a different take win. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:30 - Oct 29 with 3014 views | E20Jack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:23 - Oct 29 by xmastree |
Im not posturing. I have been up front from the start about knowing some of them and therefore having an understanding of what went on. The abuse i got the other night means i have no appetite to say anything that might be seen to back the previous shareholders which now means that those on here unable to listen to a different take win. |
Well I am telling you I am willing to give you a fair crack. PM me if you dont want others to chip in. I judge everything on its own merit. As confidential as you like. | |
| |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:33 - Oct 29 with 3013 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 16:58 - Oct 29 by xmastree |
I could give it a fair stab from what i've heard but i'm not going to. Why ?. Because no one on this site has the slightest interest in hearing the truth if it conflicts with what they want to beleive.
I have no doubt it will all come out one day as i know for a fact many people have a fair idea of the actual facts and timelines. I'll leave it to one of them.
I'll just stick to commenting on football matters from now on but they will be limited as i don't go to many games anymore. |
I’m interested in the truth. Did the trust know about the sale?
Edit - or someone in the trust. [Post edited 29 Oct 2017 17:33]
|  | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:33 - Oct 29 with 3012 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:23 - Oct 29 by xmastree |
Im not posturing. I have been up front from the start about knowing some of them and therefore having an understanding of what went on. The abuse i got the other night means i have no appetite to say anything that might be seen to back the previous shareholders which now means that those on here unable to listen to a different take win. |
The reality though xmastree, is that whatever went on in terms of who knew what and when, there is simply no excuse for selling the club blind.
And that's what happened. You don't know and nor does anyone else outside the Americans, who owns the club and therefore they can't possibly know what their intentions were. And that's unforgivable, however understandable the desire for people to monetise their holding was. At the end, the money was more important than the future of the club. And at the start of this, it was expressly stated that that situation would NEVER be allowed to happen again.
Everything else is just noise in many ways. | | | |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 18:15 - Oct 29 with 2977 views | longlostjack |
| Why isn't more anger being shown to owners? on 17:33 - Oct 29 by londonlisa2001 |
The reality though xmastree, is that whatever went on in terms of who knew what and when, there is simply no excuse for selling the club blind.
And that's what happened. You don't know and nor does anyone else outside the Americans, who owns the club and therefore they can't possibly know what their intentions were. And that's unforgivable, however understandable the desire for people to monetise their holding was. At the end, the money was more important than the future of the club. And at the start of this, it was expressly stated that that situation would NEVER be allowed to happen again.
Everything else is just noise in many ways. |
Absolutely correct. It's really sad how it's turned out. Pure greed dressed up in our club's clothing. Awful. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
