| 'Retained List' on 11:01 - May 22 with 5364 views | jackjackjackjack |
First team - Retained
Jordi Amat, Andre Ayew, Jordan Ayew, Kyle Bartley, Wilfried Bony, Tom Carroll, Sam Clucas, Nathan Dyer, Lukasz Fabianski, Leroy Fer, Federico Fernandez, Jay Fulton, Borja Baston, Alfie Mawson, Roque Mesa, Erwin Mulder, Luciano Narsingh, Kyle Naughton, Martin Olsson, Wayne Routledge, Mike van der Hoorn.
First team - Released
Angel Rangel (Released/free), Ki Sung-yueng (Released/free transfer), Leon Britton (Retired).
----
Under-23s - Retained
Courtney-Baker Richardson, Steven Benda, Ryan Blair, Brandon Cooper, Liam Cullen, Keston Davies, Kees de Boer, Marco Dulca, Jordan Garrick, Matt Grimes, Arnor Gudjohnsen, Cian Harries, Daniel James, Adam King, Adnan Maric, Oli McBurnie, Tyler Reid, Connor Roberts, Joe Rodon, Jack Withers, Gregor Zabret.
Under 23s - Contract offered
Aaron Lewis, Kenji Gorre, Jack Evans, Keiran Evans, George Byers, Botti Biabi.
Under 23s - Released
Lewis Thomas (Released/free transfers), Matic Paljk (Released/free transfer), Mael Davies (Released/free transfer), Causso Darame (Released/free transfer). |  |
|  |
| 'Retained List' on 15:07 - May 22 with 5023 views | Shaky |
Just done a quick rough and ready calculation, and if all those players are kept I reckon Swansea would make a pre-tax loss of at least £50 million for the financial year ended July 2019.
Easily wiping out shareholder funds.
Seems to me appointments are urgently needed that can take decisions on bringing costs into line with the new financial realities of life in the Championship.
That means a manager and a technical director, or whatever job title is going to replace Jenkins' current role.
This really does need to get done very soon otherwise it is the height of financial irresponsibility. |  |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 15:12 - May 22 with 5000 views | jasper_T |
The retained list is just players in contract going into next season, of course we're not keeping all of them. | | | |
| 'Retained List' on 15:12 - May 22 with 4994 views | Shaky |
| 'Retained List' on 15:12 - May 22 by jasper_T |
The retained list is just players in contract going into next season, of course we're not keeping all of them. |
Who is going to sell them? | |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 15:48 - May 22 with 4906 views | jasper_T |
Whoever's standing by the fax machine when the offers come in.
Or the players agents. I'm sure they're all busy talking to other clubs. | | | |
| 'Retained List' on 16:41 - May 22 with 4824 views | Shaky |
| 'Retained List' on 15:48 - May 22 by jasper_T |
Whoever's standing by the fax machine when the offers come in.
Or the players agents. I'm sure they're all busy talking to other clubs. |
Now you mention it, the fax machine attendant is also going to be a key post to fill. Cos that thing is going to be red hot!  | |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 17:30 - May 22 with 4684 views | TenbySwan |
Ki wasn't "released"
He just fecked off as he was out of contract! |  | | |
| 'Retained List' on 17:35 - May 22 with 4676 views | thornabyswan |
| 'Retained List' on 16:41 - May 22 by Shaky |
Now you mention it, the fax machine attendant is also going to be a key post to fill. Cos that thing is going to be red hot! |
Robin Sharpe | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 'Retained List' on 17:45 - May 22 with 4649 views | theloneranger |
| 'Retained List' on 17:35 - May 22 by thornabyswan |
Robin Sharpe |
Ray Wallace is still waiting 😂 |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 18:45 - May 22 with 4512 views | Kilkennyjack |
Great news on Kenji .... |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| 'Retained List' on 09:44 - May 23 with 4149 views | KingstonJack |
Strangely I had sofas delivered yesterday by polish who were big football fans. Saw I was a Swans fan & volunteered that they follow Fabianski & he has just signed again for 2 years | | | |
| 'Retained List' on 09:59 - May 23 with 4120 views | omarjack |
| 'Retained List' on 09:44 - May 23 by KingstonJack |
Strangely I had sofas delivered yesterday by polish who were big football fans. Saw I was a Swans fan & volunteered that they follow Fabianski & he has just signed again for 2 years |
They followed Fabianski? Jumped him in an alley and threatened to be break his fingers if he doesn't sign a new 2 years deal? [Post edited 23 May 2018 9:59]
|  |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 10:00 - May 23 with 4112 views | jack_lord |
| 'Retained List' on 15:07 - May 22 by Shaky |
Just done a quick rough and ready calculation, and if all those players are kept I reckon Swansea would make a pre-tax loss of at least £50 million for the financial year ended July 2019.
Easily wiping out shareholder funds.
Seems to me appointments are urgently needed that can take decisions on bringing costs into line with the new financial realities of life in the Championship.
That means a manager and a technical director, or whatever job title is going to replace Jenkins' current role.
This really does need to get done very soon otherwise it is the height of financial irresponsibility. |
We have a parachute payments which the largest chunk is in the first year. That would see the wages largely covered as there are those who actually do have relegation clauses.
The problem begins if the really large earners are still here the following seasons and the club have not returned to the Premier league.
Obviously selling a couple of the "big" names brings in funds to potentially recruit the best "Championship" type player.
I hope that Fabianski hasn't actually asked for a transfer and it is just newspaper crap. The others are all replaceable. |  |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 11:29 - May 23 with 4024 views | Shaky |
| 'Retained List' on 10:00 - May 23 by jack_lord |
We have a parachute payments which the largest chunk is in the first year. That would see the wages largely covered as there are those who actually do have relegation clauses.
The problem begins if the really large earners are still here the following seasons and the club have not returned to the Premier league.
Obviously selling a couple of the "big" names brings in funds to potentially recruit the best "Championship" type player.
I hope that Fabianski hasn't actually asked for a transfer and it is just newspaper crap. The others are all replaceable. |
The parachute payment is just over £50 million which covers around half of the wage bill as it stood the season before last.
The problem is that net debt this summer is likely to be at least £85 million before any player sales, of which a substantial proportion is in the form of bank overdraft.
Just before the start of the new season, the overdraft has in the past been cleared by an advance on the Premier league TV money, and I'd be very surprised if the bank isn't going to want the parachute payment in the same way this year.
Which means it is not available to cover wages.
I made some estimates that after relegation clauses and assuming no major changes in the squad the club is likely to be losing around £6 million in cash per month, excluding the parachute.
That is why selling a few players and raising say £20-30 million is not enough, because the ongoing losses will very quickly eat that cash away, and then some.
A major squad restructuring is required to get those debts down and make them stay down, otherwise going into the '19/20 season with debts of +£40 million is going to highly problematic. Much better to take a little pain now and avoid the undertaker next year or the year after. | |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 15:04 - May 23 with 3887 views | Shaky |
| 'Retained List' on 11:29 - May 23 by Shaky |
The parachute payment is just over £50 million which covers around half of the wage bill as it stood the season before last.
The problem is that net debt this summer is likely to be at least £85 million before any player sales, of which a substantial proportion is in the form of bank overdraft.
Just before the start of the new season, the overdraft has in the past been cleared by an advance on the Premier league TV money, and I'd be very surprised if the bank isn't going to want the parachute payment in the same way this year.
Which means it is not available to cover wages.
I made some estimates that after relegation clauses and assuming no major changes in the squad the club is likely to be losing around £6 million in cash per month, excluding the parachute.
That is why selling a few players and raising say £20-30 million is not enough, because the ongoing losses will very quickly eat that cash away, and then some.
A major squad restructuring is required to get those debts down and make them stay down, otherwise going into the '19/20 season with debts of +£40 million is going to highly problematic. Much better to take a little pain now and avoid the undertaker next year or the year after. |
Correction: ". . net debt this summer is likely to be at least £80 million before any player sales" | |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 18:17 - May 23 with 3692 views | Wingstandwood |
| 'Retained List' on 15:04 - May 23 by Shaky |
Correction: ". . net debt this summer is likely to be at least £80 million before any player sales" |
I do not have your financial savvy/experience/background and education but nevertheless?....... I (correct me if I'm wrong?) assume the Yanks should now be rather concerned about the future outlook/viability regarding their 'hedge-fund-investment'?
I do know a little about share purchasing and?... I (correct me if I'm wrong?) reckon an £80 million figure like should/will be classed as major 'profit-warning' stuff whereupon SCFC's share value will plummet even further along with any future prospects of a dividend payout and the potential for any future profiteering bonanza regarding any sale of SCFC to new ownership.
Now add all that to the fact the clubs share price has already plummeted?... If I was one of the hedge-fund investors?.... I would be absolutely livid because SCFC's current dire situation was easily preventable i.e. Jenkins i.e. a proven (with appalling previous) Trojan horse bufoonic impostor was allowed to steer HMS SCFC right into the jagged rocks when he should have been removed from both the helm and steering wheel. If I'm right? I hope the hedge-funders get to know all about the travesty that has hit em in the pocket. |  |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 18:42 - May 23 with 3656 views | Shaky |
| 'Retained List' on 18:17 - May 23 by Wingstandwood |
I do not have your financial savvy/experience/background and education but nevertheless?....... I (correct me if I'm wrong?) assume the Yanks should now be rather concerned about the future outlook/viability regarding their 'hedge-fund-investment'?
I do know a little about share purchasing and?... I (correct me if I'm wrong?) reckon an £80 million figure like should/will be classed as major 'profit-warning' stuff whereupon SCFC's share value will plummet even further along with any future prospects of a dividend payout and the potential for any future profiteering bonanza regarding any sale of SCFC to new ownership.
Now add all that to the fact the clubs share price has already plummeted?... If I was one of the hedge-fund investors?.... I would be absolutely livid because SCFC's current dire situation was easily preventable i.e. Jenkins i.e. a proven (with appalling previous) Trojan horse bufoonic impostor was allowed to steer HMS SCFC right into the jagged rocks when he should have been removed from both the helm and steering wheel. If I'm right? I hope the hedge-funders get to know all about the travesty that has hit em in the pocket. |
In my view the greater risk is this: hedge funds, vulture investors etc, diversify risk by making a larger number of bets.
They make high returns on average, but implicit in that is that some investments pay off huge while others go to pot.
Take Oprah, she is loaded and probably has a string of these types of high risk investments. So she is not particularly bothered if one of them goes down the drain, becasue others will perform.
One of the key identities in investment strategy is that there is an inverse relationship between financial and business risk. That means the more capital you put in (equals higher financial risk), the greater the chance the business will succeed (ie the lower the risk), with the reverse also being the case.
Right now a significant portion of the investors' original capital has been lost, and even more so than at the outset this is now a high risk, potentially high return situation.
The clear danger is that they now ignore the significantly increased business risk in the Championship and make a hail Mary bet on a quick return to the Prem.
Cos what do Oprah et al have to lose except a small fraction of their dosh, which portfolio theory says they will lose anyway? | |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 19:00 - May 23 with 3625 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 'Retained List' on 18:42 - May 23 by Shaky |
In my view the greater risk is this: hedge funds, vulture investors etc, diversify risk by making a larger number of bets.
They make high returns on average, but implicit in that is that some investments pay off huge while others go to pot.
Take Oprah, she is loaded and probably has a string of these types of high risk investments. So she is not particularly bothered if one of them goes down the drain, becasue others will perform.
One of the key identities in investment strategy is that there is an inverse relationship between financial and business risk. That means the more capital you put in (equals higher financial risk), the greater the chance the business will succeed (ie the lower the risk), with the reverse also being the case.
Right now a significant portion of the investors' original capital has been lost, and even more so than at the outset this is now a high risk, potentially high return situation.
The clear danger is that they now ignore the significantly increased business risk in the Championship and make a hail Mary bet on a quick return to the Prem.
Cos what do Oprah et al have to lose except a small fraction of their dosh, which portfolio theory says they will lose anyway? |
Oprah is still not anything whatsoever to do with the Swans of course. Genuinely not sure why you keep talking about her as though she is. | | | |
| 'Retained List' on 19:17 - May 23 with 3585 views | Flashberryjack |
| 'Retained List' on 15:12 - May 22 by Shaky |
Who is going to sell them? |
Bigger question is, who is going to buy them ? |  |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 19:18 - May 23 with 3580 views | longlostjack |
| 'Retained List' on 11:29 - May 23 by Shaky |
The parachute payment is just over £50 million which covers around half of the wage bill as it stood the season before last.
The problem is that net debt this summer is likely to be at least £85 million before any player sales, of which a substantial proportion is in the form of bank overdraft.
Just before the start of the new season, the overdraft has in the past been cleared by an advance on the Premier league TV money, and I'd be very surprised if the bank isn't going to want the parachute payment in the same way this year.
Which means it is not available to cover wages.
I made some estimates that after relegation clauses and assuming no major changes in the squad the club is likely to be losing around £6 million in cash per month, excluding the parachute.
That is why selling a few players and raising say £20-30 million is not enough, because the ongoing losses will very quickly eat that cash away, and then some.
A major squad restructuring is required to get those debts down and make them stay down, otherwise going into the '19/20 season with debts of +£40 million is going to highly problematic. Much better to take a little pain now and avoid the undertaker next year or the year after. |
Ceteris Paribus Shaky. Which they won't be of course. Our wage bill will be nowhere near the same as it was in the Premier League. |  |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 19:23 - May 23 with 3565 views | londonlisa2001 |
| 'Retained List' on 19:18 - May 23 by longlostjack |
Ceteris Paribus Shaky. Which they won't be of course. Our wage bill will be nowhere near the same as it was in the Premier League. |
Respect for use of 'ceteris paribus' on planetswans thread about our retained list.
 | | | |
| 'Retained List' on 19:34 - May 23 with 3523 views | longlostjack |
| 'Retained List' on 19:23 - May 23 by londonlisa2001 |
Respect for use of 'ceteris paribus' on planetswans thread about our retained list.
|
I was trying to impress Shaky !  | |
| |
| 'Retained List' on 22:16 - May 23 with 3367 views | Shaky |
| 'Retained List' on 19:00 - May 23 by londonlisa2001 |
Oprah is still not anything whatsoever to do with the Swans of course. Genuinely not sure why you keep talking about her as though she is. |
Isn't Oprah one of the 27 or 28 celeb investors Kaplan has bought in?
If she isn't then that really doesn't make any difference to dynamic I described.
Edit: Specifically not that they will asset strip the club, no self-respecting celeb wants to create a load of haters no matter in what strange corner of the world, but rather that they will just walk away. [Post edited 23 May 2018 22:17]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
