| From The Trust 09:59 - Jan 6 with 27428 views | Phil_S |
News from the Trust
Discussions on sale of Trust shares put on hold.
Dear Phil
We have been advised by the majority owners of Swansea City that they intend to put discussions around the sale of some of the Trust's shares to the owners of the club on hold. When informing us of this, the owners of the club cited the ongoing concerns among some Trust and Trust Board members about aspects of the share sale and also the majority owners own desire to concentrate on on-field matters.
As the mandate from Trust members to sell shares was given in July 2017 and there will now be a further delay in fulfilling that mandate, the Trust Board can confirm that a further members’ consultation will take place to ensure the Trust Board is acting on the current views of its membership on how we proceed from this point.
We will provide a further update to members as soon as possible.
Best wishes
The Swans Trust Team |  | | |  |
| From The Trust on 11:04 - Jan 9 with 1844 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 10:27 - Jan 9 by Whiterockin |
The amount of £800,000 is mentioned as the financial assets that the trust are holding.
If the new owners are "milking" the club as stated are the trust not entitled to 21% of all money taken out of the club. I understand money could be taken out through consultancy fees ect. But how could this be paid to members of a hedge fund without the trust getting their share? If the club is to be asset striped for the investors to get their £68M back, would the trust not get £21M.
Hopefully Shakey, Lisa or someone with the relative knowledge could explain this to me. |
In theory they could issue bills to the club - from from some offshore vehicle - for things like consultancy services. marketing, maybe some royalties, etc, where they incurred no actual costs and as a result could divvy up the proceeds.
In practice the financial analysis I have done on the club says with a high probability that the cupboard is bare. There is at present nothing to siphon off.
That could change if they decide to sell off the playing staff wholesale, but the team sheet is then the giveaway that something is afoot! |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 11:10 - Jan 9 with 1828 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 10:54 - Jan 9 by Nookiejack |
See article about Stan Kroenke of Arsena re: being challenged on level of Management fees he paid himself.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/arsenal-news-stan-kro
If for example Trust launched a legal action locking the Yanks in for say at least a year until the court case - then they have 2 other options for getting their money out:-
1. Dividends - the issue for them then is the Trust would then receive 21% of the Dividends.
2. Management Fees - the Yanks will receive 100% of these.
The issue is what is a reasonable amount of Management Fees they can award themselves verses what level is excessive. Chris Pearlman is rumoured to be on a lucrative package - so you would expect this to be included in the total Management Fees they award themselves.
What the Trust has to have a contingency plan for is - in a relegation scenario if say they sell off all players with value and on high salaries and replace them with the U23s - then bank the parachute money - they may say pay large amounts
offshore to Delaware and say see you in court about whether they are excessive or not and obviously unfairly prejudicial to the Trust.
I don't know whether there are mechanisms for a court injection and freezing the club's bank accounts.
Latest Management Accounts are obviously vital and I assume the Trust has Information rights as a 21% shareholder - which means the Yanks then have to deliver the Trust the Management Accounts within a certain period of time.
There was a time after the sale where the Trust didn't receive the Management Accounts for about 3 to 5 months - this can never be allowed to happen again in the future. |
I should have added when it comes to excessive Management Fees the Trust is aligned to Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan/Louisa Morgan - as although they have sold the voting rights on the residual shares that they still hold - they still have an economic interest in those shares.
So Huw Jenkins 5%, Matin Morgan 2.5% and Louisa Morgan2.5% will be hurt in the pockets if the Yanks start awarding themselves excessive Management Fees.
So any supporters of Huw Jenkins, Martin Morgan Morgan ad Louisa Morgan within the club - please keep an eye on this. |  | | |
| From The Trust on 11:11 - Jan 9 with 1826 views | Whiterockin |
| From The Trust on 10:54 - Jan 9 by Nookiejack |
See article about Stan Kroenke of Arsena re: being challenged on level of Management fees he paid himself.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/arsenal-news-stan-kro
If for example Trust launched a legal action locking the Yanks in for say at least a year until the court case - then they have 2 other options for getting their money out:-
1. Dividends - the issue for them then is the Trust would then receive 21% of the Dividends.
2. Management Fees - the Yanks will receive 100% of these.
The issue is what is a reasonable amount of Management Fees they can award themselves verses what level is excessive. Chris Pearlman is rumoured to be on a lucrative package - so you would expect this to be included in the total Management Fees they award themselves.
What the Trust has to have a contingency plan for is - in a relegation scenario if say they sell off all players with value and on high salaries and replace them with the U23s - then bank the parachute money - they may say pay large amounts
offshore to Delaware and say see you in court about whether they are excessive or not and obviously unfairly prejudicial to the Trust.
I don't know whether there are mechanisms for a court injection and freezing the club's bank accounts.
Latest Management Accounts are obviously vital and I assume the Trust has Information rights as a 21% shareholder - which means the Yanks then have to deliver the Trust the Management Accounts within a certain period of time.
There was a time after the sale where the Trust didn't receive the Management Accounts for about 3 to 5 months - this can never be allowed to happen again in the future. |
Thank you.
In your opinion. Do you think it is feasible for the majority shareholders to strip the club without the trust getting their 21%.
My thinking is if the club was stripped of its assets and the trust had £21M to the Americans £68M percentage wise. This would go a long way to purchasing the Americans 68% of the club if we were relegated. |  | | |
| From The Trust on 11:15 - Jan 9 with 1816 views | Whiterockin |
| From The Trust on 11:04 - Jan 9 by Shaky |
In theory they could issue bills to the club - from from some offshore vehicle - for things like consultancy services. marketing, maybe some royalties, etc, where they incurred no actual costs and as a result could divvy up the proceeds.
In practice the financial analysis I have done on the club says with a high probability that the cupboard is bare. There is at present nothing to siphon off.
That could change if they decide to sell off the playing staff wholesale, but the team sheet is then the giveaway that something is afoot! |
Thanks.
But if they wanted to give a return to their investors from player sales and parachute payments on relegation. Could they do this without the trust getting 21%. | | | |
| From The Trust on 11:19 - Jan 9 with 1808 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 11:04 - Jan 9 by Shaky |
In theory they could issue bills to the club - from from some offshore vehicle - for things like consultancy services. marketing, maybe some royalties, etc, where they incurred no actual costs and as a result could divvy up the proceeds.
In practice the financial analysis I have done on the club says with a high probability that the cupboard is bare. There is at present nothing to siphon off.
That could change if they decide to sell off the playing staff wholesale, but the team sheet is then the giveaway that something is afoot! |
Yes I think you are definitely right Shakey.
When the club allegedly paid Bony's agent £8m re: the Bony verses Agent case - in respect of Bony's first transfer to the club - you can understand where all the money has gone.
Add then all the managerial sackings plus their support teams.
...........resulting in the cupboard being bare.
We still haven't heard of any new material signings and if Mawson is sold - maybe the start. Add then the Parachute money. | | | |
| From The Trust on 11:19 - Jan 9 with 1807 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 11:15 - Jan 9 by Whiterockin |
Thanks.
But if they wanted to give a return to their investors from player sales and parachute payments on relegation. Could they do this without the trust getting 21%. |
Not by legal means.
But legally they also couldn't pay out much more than a total of £35 million based on my estimate of equity reserves as of the last financial year end. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 11:23 - Jan 9 with 1797 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 11:11 - Jan 9 by Whiterockin |
Thank you.
In your opinion. Do you think it is feasible for the majority shareholders to strip the club without the trust getting their 21%.
My thinking is if the club was stripped of its assets and the trust had £21M to the Americans £68M percentage wise. This would go a long way to purchasing the Americans 68% of the club if we were relegated. |
No I don't and agree with Shakey's last post.
People may try things on though and the Trust to date has been reluctant to take legal action and fight its corner.
You have to be ever observant. | | | |
| From The Trust on 11:25 - Jan 9 with 1795 views | Whiterockin |
| From The Trust on 11:19 - Jan 9 by Shaky |
Not by legal means.
But legally they also couldn't pay out much more than a total of £35 million based on my estimate of equity reserves as of the last financial year end. |
Thanks again.
So is it a viable option for the trust not to go to court at this moment, but to see how the next 12 months pan out dividend wise. With the long term plan of full control of all the clubs shares. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| From The Trust on 11:28 - Jan 9 with 1791 views | Nookiejack |
| From The Trust on 11:25 - Jan 9 by Whiterockin |
Thanks again.
So is it a viable option for the trust not to go to court at this moment, but to see how the next 12 months pan out dividend wise. With the long term plan of full control of all the clubs shares. |
The longer you don't take legal action from the date of the original sale - the more chance it can then be seen that you accepted it.
We are now 18 months down the road from the original sale another 12 months would be 2.5 years. | | | |
| From The Trust on 11:37 - Jan 9 with 1768 views | Shaky |
| From The Trust on 11:25 - Jan 9 by Whiterockin |
Thanks again.
So is it a viable option for the trust not to go to court at this moment, but to see how the next 12 months pan out dividend wise. With the long term plan of full control of all the clubs shares. |
There are few certainties in life, but one of them is that the Trust will never see £21 million in dividends from the club in anything resembling the foreseeable future. | |
| |
| From The Trust on 23:46 - Jan 9 with 1559 views | TNT |
| From The Trust on 11:10 - Jan 9 by Nookiejack |
I should have added when it comes to excessive Management Fees the Trust is aligned to Huw Jenkins and Martin Morgan/Louisa Morgan - as although they have sold the voting rights on the residual shares that they still hold - they still have an economic interest in those shares.
So Huw Jenkins 5%, Matin Morgan 2.5% and Louisa Morgan2.5% will be hurt in the pockets if the Yanks start awarding themselves excessive Management Fees.
So any supporters of Huw Jenkins, Martin Morgan Morgan ad Louisa Morgan within the club - please keep an eye on this. |
Matin Morgan. Is that what's called a Freudian slip? | |
| |
| From The Trust on 22:04 - Mar 17 with 694 views | builthjack |
The old uns are the best |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| From The Trust on 22:14 - Mar 17 with 691 views | Badlands |
| From The Trust on 10:54 - Jan 9 by Nookiejack |
See article about Stan Kroenke of Arsena re: being challenged on level of Management fees he paid himself.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/arsenal-news-stan-kro
If for example Trust launched a legal action locking the Yanks in for say at least a year until the court case - then they have 2 other options for getting their money out:-
1. Dividends - the issue for them then is the Trust would then receive 21% of the Dividends.
2. Management Fees - the Yanks will receive 100% of these.
The issue is what is a reasonable amount of Management Fees they can award themselves verses what level is excessive. Chris Pearlman is rumoured to be on a lucrative package - so you would expect this to be included in the total Management Fees they award themselves.
What the Trust has to have a contingency plan for is - in a relegation scenario if say they sell off all players with value and on high salaries and replace them with the U23s - then bank the parachute money - they may say pay large amounts
offshore to Delaware and say see you in court about whether they are excessive or not and obviously unfairly prejudicial to the Trust.
I don't know whether there are mechanisms for a court injection and freezing the club's bank accounts.
Latest Management Accounts are obviously vital and I assume the Trust has Information rights as a 21% shareholder - which means the Yanks then have to deliver the Trust the Management Accounts within a certain period of time.
There was a time after the sale where the Trust didn't receive the Management Accounts for about 3 to 5 months - this can never be allowed to happen again in the future. |
Wasn't Pearlman an employee? |  |
| |
| From The Trust on 20:50 - Mar 18 with 616 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| From The Trust on 22:14 - Mar 17 by Badlands |
Wasn't Pearlman an employee? |
Perhaps there is some crasy idea the Pearlman got paid and returned half his pay to the ownership group as some cunning plan. I think the probably have better things to do to make a crust than that. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| From The Trust on 23:53 - Mar 18 with 588 views | Garyjack |
| From The Trust on 20:50 - Mar 18 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Perhaps there is some crasy idea the Pearlman got paid and returned half his pay to the ownership group as some cunning plan. I think the probably have better things to do to make a crust than that. |
I cannot recall anyone who does not support the current regime suggesting anything of the sort!
Interestingly it is you that bring this notion up? You've obviously given it some serious thought to post this! So well done, it's certainly got legs! £900k wages, means £450k in dividends split between the small investors would be most welcome i would have thought.
You really should involve yourself with the trust and offer your services as a forensic accountant!
 |  | | |
| From The Trust on 16:23 - Mar 19 with 520 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| From The Trust on 23:53 - Mar 18 by Garyjack |
I cannot recall anyone who does not support the current regime suggesting anything of the sort!
Interestingly it is you that bring this notion up? You've obviously given it some serious thought to post this! So well done, it's certainly got legs! £900k wages, means £450k in dividends split between the small investors would be most welcome i would have thought.
You really should involve yourself with the trust and offer your services as a forensic accountant!
|
The interpretation of the following text fro Nookiejack is open to question.
"The issue is what is a reasonable amount of Management Fees they can award themselves verses what level is excessive. Chris Pearlman is rumoured to be on a lucrative package - so you would expect this to be included in the total Management Fees they award themselves".
Given that Pearlman was an employee not an investor the only link between Pearlman and the owners is they have the same colour passport.
I can cerainly put them in touch with good financial advisor. Getting 0.15 % on a current account is very poor. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| From The Trust on 16:31 - Mar 19 with 511 views | onehunglow |
| From The Trust on 23:53 - Mar 18 by Garyjack |
I cannot recall anyone who does not support the current regime suggesting anything of the sort!
Interestingly it is you that bring this notion up? You've obviously given it some serious thought to post this! So well done, it's certainly got legs! £900k wages, means £450k in dividends split between the small investors would be most welcome i would have thought.
You really should involve yourself with the trust and offer your services as a forensic accountant!
|
Haven’t we got one is the splendid Lisa in London | |
| |
| From The Trust on 17:01 - Mar 19 with 494 views | Chief |
| From The Trust on 16:23 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The interpretation of the following text fro Nookiejack is open to question.
"The issue is what is a reasonable amount of Management Fees they can award themselves verses what level is excessive. Chris Pearlman is rumoured to be on a lucrative package - so you would expect this to be included in the total Management Fees they award themselves".
Given that Pearlman was an employee not an investor the only link between Pearlman and the owners is they have the same colour passport.
I can cerainly put them in touch with good financial advisor. Getting 0.15 % on a current account is very poor. |
While I don't know what Pearlmans deal was we do know at least 1 other employee of the club was on a package that wasn't straight forward wages and that was Birch. [Post edited 19 Mar 2021 17:03]
|  |
| |
| From The Trust on 19:57 - Mar 19 with 464 views | Garyjack |
| From The Trust on 16:23 - Mar 19 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The interpretation of the following text fro Nookiejack is open to question.
"The issue is what is a reasonable amount of Management Fees they can award themselves verses what level is excessive. Chris Pearlman is rumoured to be on a lucrative package - so you would expect this to be included in the total Management Fees they award themselves".
Given that Pearlman was an employee not an investor the only link between Pearlman and the owners is they have the same colour passport.
I can cerainly put them in touch with good financial advisor. Getting 0.15 % on a current account is very poor. |
You're no fun you're not mun. If you carry on like this i shan't be your friend anymore and will stop replying to you.
You've opened up a right can of worms here though fair play. Who'd have thought the yanks have been siphoning off money from the club via executive employees inflated wages!
Can't see them being very happy with you revealing all of this mind! I thought you were on their side?  | | | |
| From The Trust on 20:11 - Mar 19 with 451 views | onehunglow |
So the Trust/fans win the Court case.
What then?
Anyone? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
