| An objective view on business ownership 20:18 - Sep 5 with 15366 views | jackanuck |
OK. Here goes. I've had this user ID for years but have never posted. I used to be on JackArmy years ago. I used to read and post all of the time but for the last few years I come on to the forums a lot less because in my opinion, it's gone really down hill.
I'm a lifelong fan of the club, mid thirties, expat and never owned a season ticket at the Vetch because I couldn't afford it. I'd go to most home games - 2/3 I'd say and always sat in the East Stand with my dad or go on the North Bank with my friends or if I was on my own. I moved away the year we went in to the Liberty and have been back to watch 1-2 games a year most seasons since then. I listened to every game on the radio through PalTalk after I left, until we hit the big time. I was really devastated when we were going to get relegated because I was worried I wouldn't be able to watch the Swans anymore. As it's turned out, The Championship seems to be hitting the big time too and so far I haven't missed a single game on TV/Internet. All in all, I'm a pretty happy chappy.
Why have I come back on the forum? It really irks me that our fans are being divided by the subject of who owns our club. I know it's not something I can fix with some silly little post on the forum, but for my own therapy, I just have to get this out there for a few people to read. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I don't expect I'll change anyones thoughts, but theres a few things I want to get off my chest in the hope that we can bind together as a fan base. A lot of what I read (the majority) makes out that everything is black or white. Like most things in life, the situation at Swansea City is far from left or right, but aptly somewhere in the middle.
First of all, I've been hearing for years and years from every premier league broadcast (like a lot of us) the Swansea success story. THE FANS OWN THE CLUB. This is not technically true. (It's a bit like saying I own Apple Inc. because I have some shares) It would have been true to say that the Swansea Supporters Trust owns a non-majority share of the club. Regardless, I've always been really proud of this and I would let the inaccurate statements made by TV pundits slide. However, I think there is a large camp of fans on this forum that do not understand when they read things like "the board sold our club...." This isn't true, the board sold their majority shares in our club.They earned those shares with money and by dedicating a large part of their lives to the success of the club for the past 15 years. Our trust still owns their minority shares. It's as factually true as it ever was that our fans (The Swansea City Supporters Trust) still own the club. I think this is a really valuable thing and I hope that our trust never dilutes or gives away it's shares in our club. It is my hope that in the future, there will be no one entity (other than the Trust) with a greater than 50% share in our club and while a million miles away from that scenario at the moment, I'd love to see the Trust get in to the drivers seat one day.
As someone who is frustrated that are club is in the majority ownership of strangers, I ask my self this question. Why did the trust not make moves to purchase shares from the rest of the board of directors / owners so that the Fans could own the majority share? You should ask this question too because it trumps all of your other questions. If you want the fans to won the club, they need to pay for it. They can't expect it to just be handed to them in a sweet heart deal by investors (Jenkins et al) who put their money at risk all those years ago.
I realize the answer to this question could be multi-faceted. For example, maybe they wanted to but couldn't afford it. Maybe they just didn't want to because they didn't want the risk exposure. Regardless of the reasons, it is important to understand accountability and for me, if we are to ask the question about why our club is in the hands of strangers, the obvious answer is - It's because the fans did not purchase the shares required to own the majority of the club. There may be incredibly good reasons for why the trust didn't do what was necessary, but it doesn't alter the fact that the failure of the trust to acquire 51% total shares is why the club was in a position to sold to foreigners.
My second blurb is about the basics of business. I am a business owner. I have founded, raised debt and equity finances and exited businesses within the past 5 years and know my way around East Coast VC's (Venture Capitalists) I'm sure i'm not alone and am among a small minority here who understand these 'ventures'
It really pisses me off when I read one liners on here from people who are Anti Ownership, Anti Board who deem everyone with an objective opinion to have their head up the arse's of Jenkins/Levein/Kaplan etc. It's simply not true. The difference between me and many of those posters is that I have a moral (and legal) compass to not fabricate bull-shit about the owners to make it appear that they are thieves and people who are taking advantage of the club. Yes, the purpose of most businesses is to make money to pay their annual burn and in most cases, to make a profit. That doesn't automatically make all owners bad. It's my opinion that this ownership group made a few big mistakes that they've since confessed too. With the exception of Jenkins, I don't think they are more qualified than anyone else to get the club back to where it needs to be, but it's obvious to anyone who has ever been involved with buying and/or selling they aren't going to go anywhere. Why?
VALUATION. So I can make sure I've expressed myself and how important this is, I'm going to say it a few more times! VALUATION VALUATION VALUATION!!!!
If you know what Valuation is, feel free to check out of this thread now. If you don't, this is possibly the missing link to answer to all of your uncertainties about what is happening and what's about to happen, probably for the next 5 years.
I'll start with a basic and made up case study.
If a theme park has 10 rides and 50,000 annual visitors and generates 1 million pounds per year with a NET Profit of around $200,000 per year, you could argue it's worth (has a valuation of) about 1 million pounds as an investment to a new buyer. That buyer would make the money back on their investment in approximately 5 years. The original owner could cash out now, or he could do a lot of work and invest more capital to make his investment worth more and cash our later. He could also give away % of his ownership and a fraction of the million pound so he can keep some skin in the game.
Our owners intention (in my opinion) is to increase the overall valuation of Swansea City and then sell the club on. I am explaining this in such simple terms because there are people on the forum who say things like, "why would they be here if not to rip the beating heart out of the club and steal all of the money" NO! If they did that, the club would be completely worthless. They would never in an entire decade be able to rip out enough money to cover their original investment from this club. The only way for them to profit is to improve the club on and off the field and sell it again for a higher price. The Club's current Valuation is probably 30 pennies on the poind to where it is if we're in the premier league. When selling it in the future, all the clubs negative attributes will be attached to the due-diligence that a buyer will do including debt, bloated salaries, deal fees etc. I am absolutely sure that they do (YEs said DO!) take a salary from the club or in the very least, have an attachment to deal fees but that is absolutely normal among ownership / venture capitalists.
Right now, there's a few die hard board-haters doing calculations on players sales to prove that they've already made their money back. All I can say is, this is futile. You don't have the books. Any money they are currently taking out of the club would be trivial 'icing on the cake" deal fee amounts and wouldn't in any scale contribute to what you currently see as trying to claw back their investment in our club by "bringing down the house" They are simply bringing our clubs burn rate inline with our annual revenue forecast now that we've lost a huge amount of revenue. If this concept is lost on you, all I can ask you to do is enrol in a very basic night school or internet course on business management. No different to running your own household, your income has to be equal or greater than your outgoings, or else your fiscal value is less than zero.
It pisses me off immensely that these American's didn't understand the history and culture that has been built within our club, especially during the past 15 years. They admitted as much in that BBC article the other day. It kills me that they were ignorant, bold and naive enough to that Idiot of an American Manager, Bradley, in charge of us. I'm so frustrated that we took big gambles on player signings in the last couple of years that haven't worked out. I do believe we are on the right track, they've learned from their mistakes and have placed trust in the right people to get the playing side of the club back on track. However, I'm also smart enough to know that as fans, we are having to live with their mistakes. Overall I think they are stupid idiots and pretty typical of the east coast VC's I've interacted with in the past. However, I don't think they are doing anything dishonest and I don't think they are going to continue to purposefully ruin our club. If they are smart, they'll open up a good channel of communication with the supporters trust and see them as the future, rightful owners of a majority stockholding in Swansea City Football Club, potentially helping the trust to acquire the loans it might need to reach the clubs future valuation, if we can cement ourselves once again as a top half premier league side with a good academy.
Overall, I just want our fans to be less divided. I'm open to constructive criticism on my thoughts and most of all, I want to be optimistic for the future.
|  | | |  |
| An objective view on business ownership on 19:06 - Sep 10 with 1757 views | Dippy |
| An objective view on business ownership on 19:04 - Sep 10 by waynekerr55 |
The SHA that doesn't exist you mean? |
I'm sure the Yanks mentioned it before | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 21:43 - Sep 10 with 1696 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 17:50 - Sep 10 by harryhpalmer |
Simple answer to one of your Qs - the Trust tried to buy Mel Nurse's shares.
Mel wanted to sell them all to the Trust.
The other shareholders invoked the shareholder agreement to prevent the Trust from buying those shares, that would have taken them over the magic 26% shareholding, protecting them and giving them more rights.
So the Q you should be asking is, why did those "sellers" block the Trust? |
Can Phil or someone from the Trust confirm this is exactly how it panned out at the time?
For one, there were none of these issues wrangling at that time and we all got to hear about the increase in shares at a much later date.
One of the main reasons for this back then was we'd just got to the EPL and we had much more exciting things to concentrate on.
I know Phil has said in the past that Mel sold his shares back to the Club at a price agreed by the Club
So by the term 'Club' I think that would've included the Trust back then. So they agreed this as well?
Anyone? |  |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 12:41 - Sep 11 with 1591 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 17:50 - Sep 10 by harryhpalmer |
Simple answer to one of your Qs - the Trust tried to buy Mel Nurse's shares.
Mel wanted to sell them all to the Trust.
The other shareholders invoked the shareholder agreement to prevent the Trust from buying those shares, that would have taken them over the magic 26% shareholding, protecting them and giving them more rights.
So the Q you should be asking is, why did those "sellers" block the Trust? |
No one corrected this post?
Bearing in mind the Trust would've only had a couple of hundred grand in the bank at the time. | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 12:41 - Sep 11 with 1589 views | _ |
| An objective view on business ownership on 18:52 - Sep 10 by vetchonian |
Great post to which I se no response from the defender of the sellouts.....I expect he is awaiting his brief |
And to reply to my senile friend....this was your post. | |
| |
| An objective view on business ownership on 20:32 - Sep 14 with 1477 views | Elmo |
| An objective view on business ownership on 13:48 - Sep 10 by londonlisa2001 |
Terrific.
So. What do you suggest we do when we’ve asked a whole series of detailed questions and no answers are being provided?
Make stuff up? To post on here?
After all, as a professional investor, you’ll understand that the CFO doesn’t sit on the Trust board? You’ll understand that the CFO can have a finger on the pulse because they have the information needed to do that? Management processes are in place because management can access information?
Or maybe, as a professional investor, ex big 4 chartered accountant / management consultant, you think that it’s better to refuse to accept what has been said, and instead bang on about people being ‘conference level’ and delighting in forecasts based on guesswork and incorrect / incomplete information? |
Ah ok my apologies for directing my frustrations at you.
From your response I think I now get your role - a sounding-board for the Trust and not a proactive Finance business partner helping to steward the performance of the business by supporting the Supporter's Director in his governance role on the (Club) Board.
My concern was/is that the Trust is not on the front-foot - in terms of proactively contributing to managing the business - esp the Financials.
Are you, or is somebody else able to assure us supporters the extent to which the Supporter's Director is proactively engaged at (Club) Board level in:
- attending regular (eg monthly) Board meetings
- reviewing/challenging Business performance - eg Board Reports
- inputting to plans/budgets/forecasts
Many thanks | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 22:45 - Sep 21 with 1367 views | Elmo |
Lisa - is there an update on Financial matters, as requested above ?
Many thanks | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 04:49 - Sep 2 with 981 views | jackanuck |
Bumping this thread I started a year ago as I think it’s really important to look back and see how far things have come.
In particular, this is still proving true for me: “It pisses me off immensely that these American's didn't understand the history and culture that has been built within our club, especially during the past 15 years. They admitted as much in that BBC article the other day. It kills me that they were ignorant, bold and naive enough to that Idiot of an American Manager, Bradley, in charge of us. I'm so frustrated that we took big gambles on player signings in the last couple of years that haven't worked out. I do believe we are on the right track, they've learned from their mistakes and have placed trust in the right people to get the playing side of the club back on track. However, I'm also smart enough to know that as fans, we are having to live with their mistakes. Overall I think they are stupid idiots and pretty typical of the east coast VC's I've interacted with in the past. However, I don't think they are doing anything dishonest and I don't think they are going to continue to purposefully ruin our club. If they are smart, they'll open up a good channel of communication with the supporters trust and see them as the future, rightful owners of a majority stockholding in Swansea City Football Club, potentially helping the trust to acquire the loans it might need to reach the clubs future valuation, if we can cement ourselves once again as a top half premier league side with a good academy”
My personal preference is just to leave Birch to it and I’m hoping that there’s no further off field drama to distract from job the club have to do in the fixture list. | | | |
| An objective view on business ownership on 10:02 - Sep 3 with 807 views | whiterock |
| An objective view on business ownership on 17:50 - Sep 10 by harryhpalmer |
Simple answer to one of your Qs - the Trust tried to buy Mel Nurse's shares.
Mel wanted to sell them all to the Trust.
The other shareholders invoked the shareholder agreement to prevent the Trust from buying those shares, that would have taken them over the magic 26% shareholding, protecting them and giving them more rights.
So the Q you should be asking is, why did those "sellers" block the Trust? |
This is not true, Mel wanted to sell but was told that he had to look inwards, in the ideal world, he might have wanted the trust to buy the shares but the SHA, which all shareholders adhered too would not allow. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| An objective view on business ownership on 10:25 - Sep 3 with 797 views | Nookiejack |
| An objective view on business ownership on 04:49 - Sep 2 by jackanuck |
Bumping this thread I started a year ago as I think it’s really important to look back and see how far things have come.
In particular, this is still proving true for me: “It pisses me off immensely that these American's didn't understand the history and culture that has been built within our club, especially during the past 15 years. They admitted as much in that BBC article the other day. It kills me that they were ignorant, bold and naive enough to that Idiot of an American Manager, Bradley, in charge of us. I'm so frustrated that we took big gambles on player signings in the last couple of years that haven't worked out. I do believe we are on the right track, they've learned from their mistakes and have placed trust in the right people to get the playing side of the club back on track. However, I'm also smart enough to know that as fans, we are having to live with their mistakes. Overall I think they are stupid idiots and pretty typical of the east coast VC's I've interacted with in the past. However, I don't think they are doing anything dishonest and I don't think they are going to continue to purposefully ruin our club. If they are smart, they'll open up a good channel of communication with the supporters trust and see them as the future, rightful owners of a majority stockholding in Swansea City Football Club, potentially helping the trust to acquire the loans it might need to reach the clubs future valuation, if we can cement ourselves once again as a top half premier league side with a good academy”
My personal preference is just to leave Birch to it and I’m hoping that there’s no further off field drama to distract from job the club have to do in the fixture list. |
Yes agreed and as you say just need to pay the Trust the same amount for their shares as they did for the selling shareholders. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
