| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? 08:54 - Sep 6 with 10549 views | TheResurrection |
Please explain why have you have never informed the fans that the Americans had put money into the Club?
The very reason the selling shareholders gave for selling was that they couldn't get the borrowing required to keep the club afloat when cashflow would all too often squeeze us. They said the new owners had the means to step in and cover these periods to keep us going.
For years fans have moaned they've not put their own money in. The selling shareholders never said they would capitalise us. But they have indeed done what was stated.
Why have you never told anyone this? |  |
| |  |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:24 - Sep 6 with 1421 views | E20Jack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:15 - Sep 6 by magicdaps10 |
Lets congratulate these pay day loans who are willing to lend people money and then ask for silly %s back.
Its easy lending money if you have it, its when the money is paid back or requested when you see the bigger picture.
And before it is mentioned, it is not besides the point and the question should certainly be asked before trying to make them look like knights in shining armour. |
What is the %?
Or are you making it up.
Tans to Cardiff was around 7%. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:27 - Sep 6 with 1416 views | Shaky |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:32 - Sep 6 by Uxbridge |
What a strange thread.
The Americans haven't put money into the club. They lent the club money in very specific circumstances against totally guaranteed (by the PL) future income from past sales (i.e. accelerated payments), which is a massively different thing.
The idea that this has somehow kept the club afloat is laughable. The idea that the Trust should be the press officers for the Americans is hilarious. I won't even get into the discussion around commercially sensitive info.
If this is the stick you're going to use to beat the Trust with, then I think I'll bow out of this. Iesu mawr. |
I don't completely understand what you are saying here: "They lent the club money in very specific circumstances against totally guaranteed (by the PL) future income from past sales (i.e. accelerated payments)"
You mean player sales?
And how should "accelerated" be understood in this context?
FWIW, I think it is important information that they are providing even short term financing. For starters why would they do that if everything was hunky-dory? Secondly money is on the line, in the event of an insolvency where they would be behind the queue for example relative to HMRC.
But at the same time it is obviously not something that the Trust is under any obligation to go around publicising, one reason being they are bound by confidentiality as Kaplan is evidently so keen on securing! |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:27 - Sep 6 with 1416 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:19 - Sep 6 by Shaky |
I see where you are going wrong now.
The Barclays agreement wasn't a new loan agreement, fool.
It was a charge of assets/pledge of security to cover an existing overdraft facility. |
To the untrained eye, which I am, it looked as if it was some sort of factoring which small companies use for cash flow, but on a much bigger scale obviously.
If for example the club reveived a fee for Clucas, and it was split over the time of Clucas's contract, then the bank would pay the full amount and take a percentage. Same with the TV money / Sponsorship etc which are usually paid not in lump sums, but over a length of time.
I could be completely off the mark though as it's over my head. |  | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:34 - Sep 6 with 1390 views | Joe_bradshaw |
I do a bit of consultancy and voluntary work in Swansea University and there is considerable Chinese investment. Acerchem International and GWFX are two of the companies involved. The number of Chinese students enrolled has exploded in the last 5 years and now stands in excess of 700.
Not much to do with the Swans other than the GWFX shirt sponsorship. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:41 - Sep 6 with 1369 views | Shaky |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:27 - Sep 6 by 34dfgdf54 |
To the untrained eye, which I am, it looked as if it was some sort of factoring which small companies use for cash flow, but on a much bigger scale obviously.
If for example the club reveived a fee for Clucas, and it was split over the time of Clucas's contract, then the bank would pay the full amount and take a percentage. Same with the TV money / Sponsorship etc which are usually paid not in lump sums, but over a length of time.
I could be completely off the mark though as it's over my head. |
I am by no means an expert on these types of bank financing arrangements, but the clause 3.1 quite clearly states what is assigned - the Central Funds - with the prior definitions clearly stating what that means; TV money. [Post edited 6 Sep 2018 11:48]
| |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:05 - Sep 6 with 1301 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:41 - Sep 6 by Shaky |
I am by no means an expert on these types of bank financing arrangements, but the clause 3.1 quite clearly states what is assigned - the Central Funds - with the prior definitions clearly stating what that means; TV money. [Post edited 6 Sep 2018 11:48]
|
And? So.what? You don't know what it's used for,well just that it is.
And the Trust have never gone out of their way to correct the multitude of posters who claim the Americans just take, take, take, when in fact they're on hand to steady the ship when needed, and at a rate commensurate with what the banks would receive.
It's a pity you're still too much of a fraud to pull them up on this. Talk about running with the hare and the hounds. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:06 - Sep 6 with 1295 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:34 - Sep 6 by Joe_bradshaw |
I do a bit of consultancy and voluntary work in Swansea University and there is considerable Chinese investment. Acerchem International and GWFX are two of the companies involved. The number of Chinese students enrolled has exploded in the last 5 years and now stands in excess of 700.
Not much to do with the Swans other than the GWFX shirt sponsorship. |
So the Chinese investors in Swansea uni had nothing to do with a potential takeover bid 2 years ago? | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:11 - Sep 6 with 1281 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:27 - Sep 6 by Shaky |
I don't completely understand what you are saying here: "They lent the club money in very specific circumstances against totally guaranteed (by the PL) future income from past sales (i.e. accelerated payments)"
You mean player sales?
And how should "accelerated" be understood in this context?
FWIW, I think it is important information that they are providing even short term financing. For starters why would they do that if everything was hunky-dory? Secondly money is on the line, in the event of an insolvency where they would be behind the queue for example relative to HMRC.
But at the same time it is obviously not something that the Trust is under any obligation to go around publicising, one reason being they are bound by confidentiality as Kaplan is evidently so keen on securing! |
Well, quite. It's almost as if someone is attempting to crowbar things into their argument.
I'll try to clarify. As we all know, player sale payments are often staged over a period of time. The club, for some time now, has often borrowed against these future installments for cashflow purposes. Mostly that has been done through third parties but in a couple of specific examples it was done through loans from the Americans, as I understand it for ease of the transaction.
As I understand, these sorts of payments are totally protected when related to PL clubs. Not sure how relates to FL, but assume similar. So risk is minimal that deal wouldn't be honoured.
I don't think this in itself is a problem either, so long as no issue with the interest rate and we're told those are identical. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:17 - Sep 6 with 1257 views | vetchonian |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:14 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
Interview with the Owners by Headmaster 3 Sep 2018 19:05https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45396360
"Swansea City's owners have warned it could take years for the club to return to the Premier League as they confront the "harsh reality" of relegation."
From Wobbly
"""You actually make an interesting point here. When talking about the owners, the trust have never corrected comments on here that the owners haven t put any new money into the club.Â
In this interview, they say they have, admittedly as loans and presumably with interest, but not equity.
That means one of three things - the interview is wrong, the management accounts are not sufficiently detailed to show this (which would be a worry!) or the trust have kept quiet"""
It seems they kept it quiet mate. I wonder if you'll have the grace to comment on this after your post from 2 nights ago? |
Why are you so intent on persecuting the Trust?
These "loans" are not injections of capital or cash and are no different in principle to the loans Martin Morgan provided in the past to help cover cashflow issues.
They are what they are a loan the monies put in have been returned .
IF these had been at extraordinary rates of interest then questions should be asked and also the Trust should be shouting from the rooftops but this is no different to previous practises where shareholders had loaned the club monies ! |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:19 - Sep 6 with 1247 views | Shaky |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:11 - Sep 6 by Uxbridge |
Well, quite. It's almost as if someone is attempting to crowbar things into their argument.
I'll try to clarify. As we all know, player sale payments are often staged over a period of time. The club, for some time now, has often borrowed against these future installments for cashflow purposes. Mostly that has been done through third parties but in a couple of specific examples it was done through loans from the Americans, as I understand it for ease of the transaction.
As I understand, these sorts of payments are totally protected when related to PL clubs. Not sure how relates to FL, but assume similar. So risk is minimal that deal wouldn't be honoured.
I don't think this in itself is a problem either, so long as no issue with the interest rate and we're told those are identical. |
Thanks.
Do you know which entity is actually extending the money? The Delaware company?
As for the extent to which payments are protected, I very much doubt the Premier League is providing any guarantees. However, they fall outside the scope of the charge taken out by Barclays in respect of the overdraft, which only covers TV money.
So to the extent that player receivables have not been factored, they are free of any liens. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:27 - Sep 6 with 1223 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:17 - Sep 6 by vetchonian |
Why are you so intent on persecuting the Trust?
These "loans" are not injections of capital or cash and are no different in principle to the loans Martin Morgan provided in the past to help cover cashflow issues.
They are what they are a loan the monies put in have been returned .
IF these had been at extraordinary rates of interest then questions should be asked and also the Trust should be shouting from the rooftops but this is no different to previous practises where shareholders had loaned the club monies ! |
I'd prefer to hear the response from Wobbly if that's OK with you, as he seems a tad more balanced than you and your pitch fork.
By the way, are you saying Martin Morgan would've written off his loans should the club have not been in a position to pay them back whenever? | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:33 - Sep 6 with 1202 views | chad |
Ok I raised this at the meeting wanting to know:
- what if anything the new majority owners had loaned to us
- What interest rate (if any) they were charging
- If this was a priority / protected loan
Basically:
- relatively small amounts (think specific player mentioned)
- They will get the same interest rates as the bank would have asked
- Repayment guaranteed from future payments
Certainly this is not them investing into the club, same as the bank don’t invest into the club. It is a business arrangement, a secured time limited loan at the same business rates the bank would demand.
Am happy so long as they are not asking for more than the bank would ask, but this is no charitable free loan and i am sure there are a few getting 1/2 a percent on their savings that would like a bit of that action. |  | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:41 - Sep 6 with 1184 views | Shaky |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:33 - Sep 6 by chad |
Ok I raised this at the meeting wanting to know:
- what if anything the new majority owners had loaned to us
- What interest rate (if any) they were charging
- If this was a priority / protected loan
Basically:
- relatively small amounts (think specific player mentioned)
- They will get the same interest rates as the bank would have asked
- Repayment guaranteed from future payments
Certainly this is not them investing into the club, same as the bank don’t invest into the club. It is a business arrangement, a secured time limited loan at the same business rates the bank would demand.
Am happy so long as they are not asking for more than the bank would ask, but this is no charitable free loan and i am sure there are a few getting 1/2 a percent on their savings that would like a bit of that action. |
I didn't see any specific player names mentioned, but if one of them is Siggy we are talking very significant amounts. Or Llorente for that matter.
It is potentially serious money, orders of magnitude more than the founding shareholders originally put into the club. | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:42 - Sep 6 with 1177 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:33 - Sep 6 by chad |
Ok I raised this at the meeting wanting to know:
- what if anything the new majority owners had loaned to us
- What interest rate (if any) they were charging
- If this was a priority / protected loan
Basically:
- relatively small amounts (think specific player mentioned)
- They will get the same interest rates as the bank would have asked
- Repayment guaranteed from future payments
Certainly this is not them investing into the club, same as the bank don’t invest into the club. It is a business arrangement, a secured time limited loan at the same business rates the bank would demand.
Am happy so long as they are not asking for more than the bank would ask, but this is no charitable free loan and i am sure there are a few getting 1/2 a percent on their savings that would like a bit of that action. |
No one is saying its an investment, no one.
What we are saying is they are on hand to help with cashflow issues, which was what we were promised when the sale went through.
For 2 years the fans, no, some fans, have complained they've not put a single penny into the club, well they have, even these guaranteed loans is them supporting us perhaps where the banks won't.
The Trust have always decided not to correct posters, and the answer as to why would tell you all you need to know about their agenda.
Funny though, I'm chuckling too... As I know there's many, many of us who are surprised by this (see Wobbly's quote from two days ago) but now everyone's all calm with it. But better than that, it's now the least they expected
😂😂😂 | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:08 - Sep 6 with 1107 views | chad |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:41 - Sep 6 by Shaky |
I didn't see any specific player names mentioned, but if one of them is Siggy we are talking very significant amounts. Or Llorente for that matter.
It is potentially serious money, orders of magnitude more than the founding shareholders originally put into the club. |
No neither of those or I would have remembered
Also it was specifically stated it was relatively small amounts
Got the impression it was far more recent | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:10 - Sep 6 with 1100 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:08 - Sep 6 by chad |
No neither of those or I would have remembered
Also it was specifically stated it was relatively small amounts
Got the impression it was far more recent |
They've already said it was this season AND last season?
Did you 'trust' the answer? | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:18 - Sep 6 with 1085 views | vetchonian |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:27 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
I'd prefer to hear the response from Wobbly if that's OK with you, as he seems a tad more balanced than you and your pitch fork.
By the way, are you saying Martin Morgan would've written off his loans should the club have not been in a position to pay them back whenever? |
The only one around with a pitchfork is you!
Where does it say the Yanks will write off the loans?
As has been stated on here these are and have been "secured" loans you profess to work in the financial sector so you will understand what that means?
I wonder at your agenda as one minute you are attacking the Trust for not doing enough then you are defending the Yanks.
My only concern is thefuture of SCFC...still hurting at how the sellouts "sold" this sale as being needed to "take us to the next level". But we are were we are
Guess what even if we did get the pitchforks out and were able to run these Yanks out of town...we could end up with a bigger bunch of shysters...so getting rid is not the answer.
TO most fans it is obvious the sale was motivated by personal greed.... and there is obvious mismanagement over the last two years in an attempt to keep PL status....look where that leaves us now, relegated and with a "weak" squad.
I say "weak" as it is thin around the edges,should VDH and Joe Rodon get injured,suspended,suffer dip in form we have little in the locker to get by.... you can repeat this for Oli who we have been forced to play despite being injured,and the midfield.
Lets see what happens in January and if the Yanks resist possible offers for the likes of Joe and Oli.
In the meanwhile we as a fanbase need to be united.....we are all behind the manager and the team....we need to now unite behind the Trust....the more info comes out the less I warm to the Yanks....NDAs , with holding info how does that help engagement?
Every time you speak I am sure you are a fifth columnist and the "enemy within"here to destabalise the Trust as it starts to do what it should!
We cannot change the [ast now Chris what the Trust should have could have done. It seems they are now fronting up and are following a guided path to a legal confrontation...to be succesful in this specific steps have to be followed as a gung ho approach can lead to get outs for those being persued.......whihc makes me think that is why you are here your paymasters maybe who you continue to defend .....by the way I have no issue with the loans as I said MArtin Morgan did similar ..but as SHaky is saying the stakes are much higher...and at the end of the day all they are doing is protecting thir investment. More often than not it is lack of cashflow that kills businesses ....the old saying "turnover is vanity,proft is sanity BUT cash is king". Jase ans Steve can not afford for the club to go belly up due to lack of cash to pay the bills ,,this is a seperate issue to profitiability as a company can be profitable but not necessarily cash rich! | |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:19 - Sep 6 with 1080 views | KrisP |
When fans on here say the Americans "haven't put any money on" you know full well that they mean invested their own cash for players etc, not short term loans which they quickly recover. This thread is pretty disingenuous, I don't believe you truly think that the fans here were up in arms about the owners not making short term loans when they were. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:23 - Sep 6 with 1074 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 09:36 - Sep 6 by Uxbridge |
Think so. Worth noting we don't believe any impropriety and that loans were at the same rate as other lenders. |
The Trust could presumably contribute some of its £800k to the short term funding need and receive presumably a better interest rate than it is currently receiving - if it is all secured and very short term? | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:29 - Sep 6 with 1063 views | Jack11 |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:19 - Sep 6 by KrisP |
When fans on here say the Americans "haven't put any money on" you know full well that they mean invested their own cash for players etc, not short term loans which they quickly recover. This thread is pretty disingenuous, I don't believe you truly think that the fans here were up in arms about the owners not making short term loans when they were. |
A well written paragraph that sums it up perfectly. A bridging loan is not an investment. It’s protecting your investment but it’s not an injection of capital per se. They’ll get no credit or thanks from me for that. As I’ll say again, the previous owners were capable of sustaining that model. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:32 - Sep 6 with 1047 views | Darran |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:19 - Sep 6 by KrisP |
When fans on here say the Americans "haven't put any money on" you know full well that they mean invested their own cash for players etc, not short term loans which they quickly recover. This thread is pretty disingenuous, I don't believe you truly think that the fans here were up in arms about the owners not making short term loans when they were. |
Exactly Mate and it’s uttetiy insane that you’ve actually had to explain it. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:37 - Sep 6 with 1024 views | magicdaps10 |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 11:24 - Sep 6 by E20Jack |
What is the %?
Or are you making it up.
Tans to Cardiff was around 7%. |
I dont know the %.
I have not given a % so therefore don't see that I have made anything up, just trying to bring a sense of thought to Mr T2C head. |  |
| |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:38 - Sep 6 with 1019 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 10:20 - Sep 6 by MoscowJack |
I think the Chinese interest turned out to be a scammer pretending to be rich. I don't think there was a plethora of potential owners lining up to buy a club like ours. It simply isn't attractive enough geographically (ie not in or near London, Manchester or Birmingham).
Saying that, I believe some of the sellers were too desperate to sell to care about who to. Yanks 1.0 were chased away (rightly so) but Yanks 2.0 seemed a lot more suitable. Sadly, they've failed to live up to their promises.
“We will be relentless in our determination to continually improve this club - and we have the financial resources to do so.
“We will be competitive and we will outwork our opponents on the pitch and in the boardroom.” |
At the end of the day the decision of the Trust to chase away Yanks v1.0 has been a total disaster. (I actually congratulated Phil when Yanks v1.0 pulled out)
The Trust has never wanted to give up its hard won 21% stake - but in hindsight has led to this total mess.
It could now be sitting on £16m in the Bank with still a residual stake of 5%, which I am sure new owners would have allowed a seat on the Boardroom.
They would now be very well positioned to step in and take control of the club.
How did the Trust expect any new owners to inject new equity - as the Trust couldn’t proportionally match any new equity investment - so would have been diluted Away.
Totally disingenuous then for the Trust to make out that the Yanks haven’t made any new equity investment. If they had Trust would have been fully diluted Away.
Which was the whole point of Trust chasing away Yanks v1.0 in first place - as they wanted to keep 21% and in fact build on it.
The Trust leadership kept making statements that they wanted to achieve 25% stake aonthat would have enabled them not to block special resolutions - but the total flaw in that strategy was that no new owner could then make future equity investment without the Trust being diluted back under the 25% - as Trust only has £800k to participate in future investment. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:38 - Sep 6 with 1019 views | chad |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 12:42 - Sep 6 by TheResurrection |
No one is saying its an investment, no one.
What we are saying is they are on hand to help with cashflow issues, which was what we were promised when the sale went through.
For 2 years the fans, no, some fans, have complained they've not put a single penny into the club, well they have, even these guaranteed loans is them supporting us perhaps where the banks won't.
The Trust have always decided not to correct posters, and the answer as to why would tell you all you need to know about their agenda.
Funny though, I'm chuckling too... As I know there's many, many of us who are surprised by this (see Wobbly's quote from two days ago) but now everyone's all calm with it. But better than that, it's now the least they expected
😂😂😂 |
Would you say the banks are putting money into the club
I would not
They are making business loans at profitable rates, so you could actually argue they are actually taking money out of the club.
Same regardless of the source of the loan
I do not see HSBC bigging me up on their website for putting money into their business nor would I expect them to and I get an infinitesimal amount of interest in comparison.
What they are doing seems fine, but it is at best mutually beneficial. And unless you know these relatively small, guaranteed, time limited loans could not be secured elsewhere then it seems no benefit to us whatsoever where the loan comes from. | | | |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:41 - Sep 6 with 1008 views | Jack11 |
| FAO THETRUST. Why have you not told us they have put money in? on 13:38 - Sep 6 by Nookiejack |
At the end of the day the decision of the Trust to chase away Yanks v1.0 has been a total disaster. (I actually congratulated Phil when Yanks v1.0 pulled out)
The Trust has never wanted to give up its hard won 21% stake - but in hindsight has led to this total mess.
It could now be sitting on £16m in the Bank with still a residual stake of 5%, which I am sure new owners would have allowed a seat on the Boardroom.
They would now be very well positioned to step in and take control of the club.
How did the Trust expect any new owners to inject new equity - as the Trust couldn’t proportionally match any new equity investment - so would have been diluted Away.
Totally disingenuous then for the Trust to make out that the Yanks haven’t made any new equity investment. If they had Trust would have been fully diluted Away.
Which was the whole point of Trust chasing away Yanks v1.0 in first place - as they wanted to keep 21% and in fact build on it.
The Trust leadership kept making statements that they wanted to achieve 25% stake aonthat would have enabled them not to block special resolutions - but the total flaw in that strategy was that no new owner could then make future equity investment without the Trust being diluted back under the 25% - as Trust only has £800k to participate in future investment. |
If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
