| NSR Bury 19:14 - Aug 4 with 8696 views | waynekerr55 |
what a mess
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| NSR Bury on 21:41 - Nov 1 with 850 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 21:28 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Gary is perpetuating a myth. The value of the shares are not, and never have been worthless. People do not buy shares to enable them to vote or run the company they own shares in. They are no different to 2009-2010. It is true the Trust are isolated but that is their fault. They have taken a confrontational position. This myth has been perpetuated by manipulative people to win votes for legal action.
The Trust never had any influence on the decisions made at Swansea city. it was entirely down to the selling directors I suspect. They were along for the ride.
The Trust holding is worth £8.4m in the championship up to £10.5m based on a Derby County equivilent. If Burnley is worth the quoted £200m given in the BBC the Trusts holding is worth arund £42m in the Premier league. Gary and his chums argue there is no buyers for Premier league clubs. Be sure if they are the US owners will find them if a good profit is to be made. Burnley are under the spot light , Southampton were bought by Chinese recently, WBA similarly Everton bought by an Egyptian, Fulham US owned in the last 5 years Wolves recently purchased. Derby under consideration. The list goes on. Be clear the idea the Trust shares are worthless is laughable. |
- haha see the lack of balance is once again incredible. The trust have had to take a 'confrontational' stance because they were deceitfully excluded by the sell outs and the Americans. How are you so unable to see this undisputable fact - even admitted by the Americans on tape.
- Complete and utter nonsense and yet again randomly defaulting to downplaying the trust again with no real basis to do so.
- back to worthless comparisons to other clubs. As has occurred in the past, what's the stop the trust being excluded again in the event of us getting promoted & some other buyers magically appearing? |  |
| |
| NSR Bury on 22:20 - Nov 2 with 777 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 21:41 - Nov 1 by Chief |
- haha see the lack of balance is once again incredible. The trust have had to take a 'confrontational' stance because they were deceitfully excluded by the sell outs and the Americans. How are you so unable to see this undisputable fact - even admitted by the Americans on tape.
- Complete and utter nonsense and yet again randomly defaulting to downplaying the trust again with no real basis to do so.
- back to worthless comparisons to other clubs. As has occurred in the past, what's the stop the trust being excluded again in the event of us getting promoted & some other buyers magically appearing? |
What is to stop the Trust bein excluded again? You ask.
A 'tag on' clause would presumably do this. This I presume comes associated with a 'drag on' clause. The Trust it appears did not have one in 2016. It is not my field of expertise but I can see their value. If the Trust had a tag on clause in 2016 it would have meant the others that wanted to sell must include them. Similarly if the Trust signed a 'drag on' clause the Trust could not then remain as sharehloder and would have had to accept the deal made by the majority even if they opposed it.
From what I remember reading it was these clauses that the Trust did not like or accept which led to one resignation. I am slightly uncertain why the Trust think they have a case given they had no tag on clause as that is specifically what they are for.
I consider that although the Trust was not included in the initial talks they clearly had plenty of time to join in the sale in the Summer of 2016 and were given a second chance in 2017. In 2017 the hostility in the rank and file to a deal chased the buyer away according to them. This I presume was why they were excluded in the first place. Leaving them out was pure cmmon sense for the sellers as the Trust had stated in writing that selling was not their prefered option even with a x 100 return on investment. That was not too wise in my opinon.
The good news is tat this might actually turn out a good if very highly risky call.
Selling their shares was a very good idea. (sensible and holding 5-10% for growth)
Holding their shares could turn out a very good idea. (Extremely high risk but sound if Swansea get promoted)
Suing the other shareholders and giving away a large proportion of their shares as fees (stinks).
Debating the points again with wisdom from Resolven. Debating clearly was not done before the well healed London smoothies were brought in for an easy payday. [Post edited 3 Nov 2020 14:08]
|  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 23:35 - Nov 2 with 767 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 22:20 - Nov 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
What is to stop the Trust bein excluded again? You ask.
A 'tag on' clause would presumably do this. This I presume comes associated with a 'drag on' clause. The Trust it appears did not have one in 2016. It is not my field of expertise but I can see their value. If the Trust had a tag on clause in 2016 it would have meant the others that wanted to sell must include them. Similarly if the Trust signed a 'drag on' clause the Trust could not then remain as sharehloder and would have had to accept the deal made by the majority even if they opposed it.
From what I remember reading it was these clauses that the Trust did not like or accept which led to one resignation. I am slightly uncertain why the Trust think they have a case given they had no tag on clause as that is specifically what they are for.
I consider that although the Trust was not included in the initial talks they clearly had plenty of time to join in the sale in the Summer of 2016 and were given a second chance in 2017. In 2017 the hostility in the rank and file to a deal chased the buyer away according to them. This I presume was why they were excluded in the first place. Leaving them out was pure cmmon sense for the sellers as the Trust had stated in writing that selling was not their prefered option even with a x 100 return on investment. That was not too wise in my opinon.
The good news is tat this might actually turn out a good if very highly risky call.
Selling their shares was a very good idea. (sensible and holding 5-10% for growth)
Holding their shares could turn out a very good idea. (Extremely high risk but sound if Swansea get promoted)
Suing the other shareholders and giving away a large proportion of their shares as fees (stinks).
Debating the points again with wisdom from Resolven. Debating clearly was not done before the well healed London smoothies were brought in for an easy payday. [Post edited 3 Nov 2020 14:08]
|
- Right so presumably the trust and Americans currently have no tag on clauses then?
- Well a QC thinks they have a case, plus we know Huw was very eager to go after the shareholders agreement which I presume would be similar to one of these tag agreements.
- Surely you can only join a sale if the buyer is willing to buy? Is there any indication at that time the Americans wanted to buy the trusts shares? If they intended or wanted to they wouldn't have excluded them (which the Americans have admitted on camera to doing).
- yea we are all aware why the sell outs excluded the trust. They wanted to make sure they were able to cash in without complications. Logical on their behalf. Ethical though? No. Illegal? Potentially.
- the trust selling shares at that time would have been undesirable - especially to people like the ones who did bid first time. As we know, there has since been a material change in circumstances.
- It's not 'dumb' at all (terrible choice of word by the way), it was simply being a supporters Trust - not a fund, a pot or an investment vehicle.
- more random drivel on the bottom there.
Question - if the trust are successful in the case, do you think the Americans will then go after the sell outs? | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 14:07 - Nov 3 with 738 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 23:35 - Nov 2 by Chief |
- Right so presumably the trust and Americans currently have no tag on clauses then?
- Well a QC thinks they have a case, plus we know Huw was very eager to go after the shareholders agreement which I presume would be similar to one of these tag agreements.
- Surely you can only join a sale if the buyer is willing to buy? Is there any indication at that time the Americans wanted to buy the trusts shares? If they intended or wanted to they wouldn't have excluded them (which the Americans have admitted on camera to doing).
- yea we are all aware why the sell outs excluded the trust. They wanted to make sure they were able to cash in without complications. Logical on their behalf. Ethical though? No. Illegal? Potentially.
- the trust selling shares at that time would have been undesirable - especially to people like the ones who did bid first time. As we know, there has since been a material change in circumstances.
- It's not 'dumb' at all (terrible choice of word by the way), it was simply being a supporters Trust - not a fund, a pot or an investment vehicle.
- more random drivel on the bottom there.
Question - if the trust are successful in the case, do you think the Americans will then go after the sell outs? |
I presume there is no 'tag on' clause. I read that this was an issue in the 2017 talks.
The QC thinks they have a case from information given to him by the Trust. Funders will look at both sides.
The US owners said they were willing to buy. They asked the Trust if they wanted to sell and got no response. Taken as a no. The US peope also entered into 4 months of talks in 2017 on the same terms. The terms were not acceptable to the Trust in light of vigorous member objections.
The way I see the people who wanted to sell sold and those that did not like the terms did not. Nice and simple. You cannot sell if you are "not sure". The Trust had plenty of time to join the talks but chose not to.
You state the Trust is not "a fund a pot or investment vehicle". It have tried to prove to you the illogical state of your position. It the Trust has a 100% win this is a 'nuclear option' and that is excatly what it will become. There will be no way back. It has to become an investment vehicle or it will become a 'Zombie' fund. These are funds locked into low return and are extremely poorly performing. I have a 'with profits' fund grossing 0.25% pa when the marketts were flying. Assume say the trust pockets £12,000,000. The BoE infltion target is 3%. This is the best guide. Without active management the £12,000,000 in real terms will be worth only £8,800,000 in ten years after inflation. . This is roughly what the value of the trust is at this moment in the Championsip. £6,4m after 20 years. No one would invite them to join the bord for those peanuts.
None of the trust big wigs explains this. Perhaps the do not understnd themselves.
I have edited the previous post to "not too wise". All the trust s actions indicate poor decsion making. Being a 'good bloke ' is not enough to run a multi million pound organisation which it has become. Members deserve and can afford the best advice. Bring in a consultant to review their position especially in light of new valuations of PL clubs and the clubs good form. The Trusts board has been given a very easy ride by the members and have performed miserbly. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 14:57 - Nov 3 with 734 views | chad |
| NSR Bury on 19:41 - Nov 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The legal action is far from an actuality in fact I think it is now unlikely. You may have noticed the Trust statement today. No mention of it. The QC assessement was based on information given to him by the Trust. The funders will look into the matter in more detail. Like I said, the dash for legal action was based on the idea Swansea city was a sinking ship holed and listing, and they ran for the life rafts with the missus's jewelry.
Legal action is actually just a bad idea. If Cooper does well it will further improve the wealth of those that sold and impoverish the Trust. The exact opposite of what the members voted for. I am articuating those ideas. They are worth exploring. |
You seem for your own motives to continue articulating unadulterated nonsense
For instance the Trust members update issued on Wednesday quite clearly reported substantial progress.
The legal action is based on the actions Leading up to and after the sale that significantly disadvantaged the Trust as a shareholder - unfair prejudice. An experienced QC has placed their considerable reputation on stating we have a strong case. Do you think they would do that on the strength of some half assed tale. Do you think they do not understand the main pillars, sound (let alone strong) unfair prejudice cases are based on?
Step away from the tracks, that train is coming |  | | |
| NSR Bury on 15:36 - Nov 3 with 728 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 14:07 - Nov 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I presume there is no 'tag on' clause. I read that this was an issue in the 2017 talks.
The QC thinks they have a case from information given to him by the Trust. Funders will look at both sides.
The US owners said they were willing to buy. They asked the Trust if they wanted to sell and got no response. Taken as a no. The US peope also entered into 4 months of talks in 2017 on the same terms. The terms were not acceptable to the Trust in light of vigorous member objections.
The way I see the people who wanted to sell sold and those that did not like the terms did not. Nice and simple. You cannot sell if you are "not sure". The Trust had plenty of time to join the talks but chose not to.
You state the Trust is not "a fund a pot or investment vehicle". It have tried to prove to you the illogical state of your position. It the Trust has a 100% win this is a 'nuclear option' and that is excatly what it will become. There will be no way back. It has to become an investment vehicle or it will become a 'Zombie' fund. These are funds locked into low return and are extremely poorly performing. I have a 'with profits' fund grossing 0.25% pa when the marketts were flying. Assume say the trust pockets £12,000,000. The BoE infltion target is 3%. This is the best guide. Without active management the £12,000,000 in real terms will be worth only £8,800,000 in ten years after inflation. . This is roughly what the value of the trust is at this moment in the Championsip. £6,4m after 20 years. No one would invite them to join the bord for those peanuts.
None of the trust big wigs explains this. Perhaps the do not understnd themselves.
I have edited the previous post to "not too wise". All the trust s actions indicate poor decsion making. Being a 'good bloke ' is not enough to run a multi million pound organisation which it has become. Members deserve and can afford the best advice. Bring in a consultant to review their position especially in light of new valuations of PL clubs and the clubs good form. The Trusts board has been given a very easy ride by the members and have performed miserbly. |
- Why do you think the QC wouldn't look at both sides?
- "They asked the trust if they were willing to sell" - this is just a lie isn't it? The Americans themselves admitted they kept the trust out of the purchase so they contradict your statement.
- 'same terms' - is there any evidence this is the case - earlier in this thread you said 'comparable' - your story is creeping again.
- That offer was rescinded so whether it was or wasn't acceptable to certain trust members is irrelevant.
- you can see it like with you star spangled tinted specs if you like, but it's not accurate is it? The trust would have needed to have been included in the discussions (which is a two way street to combat your next point by the way) for them to have been able to decide whether the terms were agreeable or not&therefore also receive a formal offer&reply with a formal response. We know by the Americans own admission that this did not happen.
- Yea no doubt it will have had to become a fund since their hand has been forced by the situation they find themselves in through no fault of their own. This is the crux of the case. Its not ideal, but as stated, you adapt to the circumstances you find yourself in.
- there may well be a way back at some point. You say the opposite as if it's fact when it isn't.
- How do you what type or where the trust will store the money in the event of them winning the case? Again you've randomly defaulted to a worse case scenario for no real reason to do so.
- As a supporters trust, how has it performed badly? Remember and this me repeating myself yet again, up until this point it isn't an investment fund dealing in stocks & shares.
- yea as I say repeatedly to you maybe they should bring in a specialist depending on price. If or when it is needed why wouldn't trust engage their services? They employed the QC who's a specialist in their specific field for example. So yet another example of you using a stick to beat the trust with no real reason or logic. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 16:11 - Nov 3 with 723 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 14:57 - Nov 3 by chad |
You seem for your own motives to continue articulating unadulterated nonsense
For instance the Trust members update issued on Wednesday quite clearly reported substantial progress.
The legal action is based on the actions Leading up to and after the sale that significantly disadvantaged the Trust as a shareholder - unfair prejudice. An experienced QC has placed their considerable reputation on stating we have a strong case. Do you think they would do that on the strength of some half assed tale. Do you think they do not understand the main pillars, sound (let alone strong) unfair prejudice cases are based on?
Step away from the tracks, that train is coming |
My motives is to discourage legal action which is bad for the club, the owners of the club and the Trust itself. The only winners are the funders legal people and their assoicates.
I have applied logic to the the legal case and recommend an independant assessment by a respected business expert, of the situation before the Trust press the red nuclear button. I consider legal actioin in is in business terms illogical. This assessemt completeted in 2-3 months should consider outcomes and strategy and scenarios for sucess and failure. Swansea is on an upward trajectory.
The tracks three mile ahead need to be checked to avoid bad outcomes. Impartial Reolven logic with no cash in the game.
I do not talk legalities or moral questions. This is business. I talk outcomes. Carillion had a sob story. Guess what? No one is interested.
The Trust will sue for £21m 2016 prices and lose roughly half of that in fees and costs for a 100% win. This will leave them around £12m - £14m which no one disputes because they have no figures of their own. The projected value of the club in the Premier league is now around £200m based on the Burnley valuation. If Swansea get promoted the Trust s valuation would be around £42m.
Based on a upper Derby valuation the Trust is currently worth £8-10m. Therefore the gains from legal action coud be as low as £2-4m. If Swansea return to the PL the valuation losses will be a staggering £30m. THIRTY MILLION. this will end up in the pockets of Uncle Sam and the sellers or whoever buys the shares minus the funders and legal fees.
You want figures?. I have given them to you as broad brush estimates from what I have read. The members actions makes no sense. Given the chance to own a football club they appear be preparing to give half of it away with all potential upsides gone. It will be a zombie fund whereby the money notionally seen as an insurance become less and less with every year that passes to the point of total irrelevance.
Professional advice is recommended. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 16:28 - Nov 3 with 716 views | Garyjack |
| NSR Bury on 16:11 - Nov 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
My motives is to discourage legal action which is bad for the club, the owners of the club and the Trust itself. The only winners are the funders legal people and their assoicates.
I have applied logic to the the legal case and recommend an independant assessment by a respected business expert, of the situation before the Trust press the red nuclear button. I consider legal actioin in is in business terms illogical. This assessemt completeted in 2-3 months should consider outcomes and strategy and scenarios for sucess and failure. Swansea is on an upward trajectory.
The tracks three mile ahead need to be checked to avoid bad outcomes. Impartial Reolven logic with no cash in the game.
I do not talk legalities or moral questions. This is business. I talk outcomes. Carillion had a sob story. Guess what? No one is interested.
The Trust will sue for £21m 2016 prices and lose roughly half of that in fees and costs for a 100% win. This will leave them around £12m - £14m which no one disputes because they have no figures of their own. The projected value of the club in the Premier league is now around £200m based on the Burnley valuation. If Swansea get promoted the Trust s valuation would be around £42m.
Based on a upper Derby valuation the Trust is currently worth £8-10m. Therefore the gains from legal action coud be as low as £2-4m. If Swansea return to the PL the valuation losses will be a staggering £30m. THIRTY MILLION. this will end up in the pockets of Uncle Sam and the sellers or whoever buys the shares minus the funders and legal fees.
You want figures?. I have given them to you as broad brush estimates from what I have read. The members actions makes no sense. Given the chance to own a football club they appear be preparing to give half of it away with all potential upsides gone. It will be a zombie fund whereby the money notionally seen as an insurance become less and less with every year that passes to the point of total irrelevance.
Professional advice is recommended. |
Professional help is what i recommend pal.  |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| NSR Bury on 17:32 - Nov 3 with 691 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 15:36 - Nov 3 by Chief |
- Why do you think the QC wouldn't look at both sides?
- "They asked the trust if they were willing to sell" - this is just a lie isn't it? The Americans themselves admitted they kept the trust out of the purchase so they contradict your statement.
- 'same terms' - is there any evidence this is the case - earlier in this thread you said 'comparable' - your story is creeping again.
- That offer was rescinded so whether it was or wasn't acceptable to certain trust members is irrelevant.
- you can see it like with you star spangled tinted specs if you like, but it's not accurate is it? The trust would have needed to have been included in the discussions (which is a two way street to combat your next point by the way) for them to have been able to decide whether the terms were agreeable or not&therefore also receive a formal offer&reply with a formal response. We know by the Americans own admission that this did not happen.
- Yea no doubt it will have had to become a fund since their hand has been forced by the situation they find themselves in through no fault of their own. This is the crux of the case. Its not ideal, but as stated, you adapt to the circumstances you find yourself in.
- there may well be a way back at some point. You say the opposite as if it's fact when it isn't.
- How do you what type or where the trust will store the money in the event of them winning the case? Again you've randomly defaulted to a worse case scenario for no real reason to do so.
- As a supporters trust, how has it performed badly? Remember and this me repeating myself yet again, up until this point it isn't an investment fund dealing in stocks & shares.
- yea as I say repeatedly to you maybe they should bring in a specialist depending on price. If or when it is needed why wouldn't trust engage their services? They employed the QC who's a specialist in their specific field for example. So yet another example of you using a stick to beat the trust with no real reason or logic. |
The QC was on £3k an hour £30k a day. He would not have had too much time to review the case in detail I respectfully suggest.
The US people claimed the terms were the same. The departing chairman said there were no significant changes and it would be put to the members in any case. Comparable seemed like a reasonable word to use.
The offer was withdrawn after it became evident there was considerable and vigorous objections after 4 fruitless months of negiocation. This was having a harmfull effect on the individual concerned leading to his resigantion.
The Trusts hand as not been forced. They had two options accept the terms or reject the terms. They were unable to do either. Not agreeing over time is de facto a rejection. Buyers will rarely purchase something from a seller who is having a full scale "domestic" on the courtyard. They have not lost any infuence as a result of the sale. They were already in a minority position as everyone else wanted to sell.
Once the Trust becomes a financial fund it is no longer interested in football. Football outside Swansea is a bad investments almost always. The members will be handing over the Trust to a completely different type of person. It will not be invloved or welcome at Swansea city AFC.
SCST has performed very badly. It has no money, no friends in the club no clout witihin the corridors of power and is seen as a pain in the neck, I suspect. They even failed to turn up for mediations.
They need business advice from a respected business specialist and have the money to pay for it. Circumstances have changed since 2016. Both protagonists have gone on either side. The projected value of the club in the PL has doubled. The terms from the funders may have increased (that would not be a surprise) and the club is prospering not sliding down the leagues. [Post edited 3 Nov 2020 18:03]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 17:33 - Nov 3 with 690 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 16:28 - Nov 3 by Garyjack |
Professional help is what i recommend pal. |
You have called me quite a few offensive things. I find the word Pal the most alarming. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 20:13 - Nov 3 with 660 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 17:32 - Nov 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC was on £3k an hour £30k a day. He would not have had too much time to review the case in detail I respectfully suggest.
The US people claimed the terms were the same. The departing chairman said there were no significant changes and it would be put to the members in any case. Comparable seemed like a reasonable word to use.
The offer was withdrawn after it became evident there was considerable and vigorous objections after 4 fruitless months of negiocation. This was having a harmfull effect on the individual concerned leading to his resigantion.
The Trusts hand as not been forced. They had two options accept the terms or reject the terms. They were unable to do either. Not agreeing over time is de facto a rejection. Buyers will rarely purchase something from a seller who is having a full scale "domestic" on the courtyard. They have not lost any infuence as a result of the sale. They were already in a minority position as everyone else wanted to sell.
Once the Trust becomes a financial fund it is no longer interested in football. Football outside Swansea is a bad investments almost always. The members will be handing over the Trust to a completely different type of person. It will not be invloved or welcome at Swansea city AFC.
SCST has performed very badly. It has no money, no friends in the club no clout witihin the corridors of power and is seen as a pain in the neck, I suspect. They even failed to turn up for mediations.
They need business advice from a respected business specialist and have the money to pay for it. Circumstances have changed since 2016. Both protagonists have gone on either side. The projected value of the club in the PL has doubled. The terms from the funders may have increased (that would not be a surprise) and the club is prospering not sliding down the leagues. [Post edited 3 Nov 2020 18:03]
|
- nevertheless the QC did endorse the case. If they didn't have enough time to assess the case as you allude to, I'm sure they would have stated that. So again negativity from yourself, when there is no reason for any.
- So were the terms comparable or the same? If they were the same why wouldn't the trust have balloted the members on that deal? Instead of having to go through courts. Again you're defaulting against the trust with no good reason.
- If the so called offer was the same as the sell outs received, why the need for 'negotiation'? Especially one taking apparently 4 months. You're version of events isn't adding up is it?
- They did neither because an offer by the Americans was rescinded, so no need for 'de facto' anything.
- Were they in a minority though? There were lots of shareholders - some local, some wealthy, up to the sale we don't know whether the sell ours actually acted as 1 power block. And even if they did there was very little hint that the trust were on bad terms or weren't included in decision making etc. There has been an obvious change since the sale.
- Why do you say is it not interested in football anymore - the whole point in it is with a view of helping out the club in the future. It's precisely about football.
- you still do not get this so you? Unbelievable blinkered mentality. The reason the trust have little money is because the sellouts and Americans excluded them from negotiations that could have made them considerably wealthier. The reason they have no clout is because the sell outs and Americans colluded to make it that way. They may well have 'no friends'. That's an indictment on the Americans - the trust coexisted fine for many years through the clubs most successful spell under previous ownership. If the Americans are annoyed by the trust we should all br worried as to their intentions.
- It was the Americans and sell outs who didn't attend mediation.
- The supporters Trust has a proud history at this football club and are seen as a template for other trusts across the country. They have provided a voice for the fans for many years now and hold the owners to account.
- You're obsessed with this business advice thing. Any award is a long way off. I'm sure the trust will seek pertinent advice as and when needed. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 20:57 - Nov 3 with 654 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 20:13 - Nov 3 by Chief |
- nevertheless the QC did endorse the case. If they didn't have enough time to assess the case as you allude to, I'm sure they would have stated that. So again negativity from yourself, when there is no reason for any.
- So were the terms comparable or the same? If they were the same why wouldn't the trust have balloted the members on that deal? Instead of having to go through courts. Again you're defaulting against the trust with no good reason.
- If the so called offer was the same as the sell outs received, why the need for 'negotiation'? Especially one taking apparently 4 months. You're version of events isn't adding up is it?
- They did neither because an offer by the Americans was rescinded, so no need for 'de facto' anything.
- Were they in a minority though? There were lots of shareholders - some local, some wealthy, up to the sale we don't know whether the sell ours actually acted as 1 power block. And even if they did there was very little hint that the trust were on bad terms or weren't included in decision making etc. There has been an obvious change since the sale.
- Why do you say is it not interested in football anymore - the whole point in it is with a view of helping out the club in the future. It's precisely about football.
- you still do not get this so you? Unbelievable blinkered mentality. The reason the trust have little money is because the sellouts and Americans excluded them from negotiations that could have made them considerably wealthier. The reason they have no clout is because the sell outs and Americans colluded to make it that way. They may well have 'no friends'. That's an indictment on the Americans - the trust coexisted fine for many years through the clubs most successful spell under previous ownership. If the Americans are annoyed by the trust we should all br worried as to their intentions.
- It was the Americans and sell outs who didn't attend mediation.
- The supporters Trust has a proud history at this football club and are seen as a template for other trusts across the country. They have provided a voice for the fans for many years now and hold the owners to account.
- You're obsessed with this business advice thing. Any award is a long way off. I'm sure the trust will seek pertinent advice as and when needed. |
The QC said the Trust has a good case (from the information he had seen). He did not endorse the case at all. In fact he said it was the 'last resort' option. That is eating the pet dog.
All I have seen is the Trust promoting it as a first not last resort. Talks for a sale on the same terms were objected to by activists and mediation was not attended as the Trust were sniffy about the US representation.
The terms were the same according to the US people confirmed by the outgoing Chairman. Why the Trust did not accept them is something I cannot answer. The US people gave up believeing there was no point wasting their time in a acrimonious atmosphrere. This is not a surprise. It was not fair to expect volunteers to run the abuse.
The SCST is the exact opposite for the ideal template of Trusts in UK football. They motivations are to cash in and run giving the clubs owners a broken nose. What an advertisment eh? A template that goes to court with no money and subjected to obscene terms by their funders. They have slipped into a deep fear of the future, not a total belief in the future based on the Swansea way set up by people they loathe. Stone cold losers in my eyes.
They dream not of being of Hoffenheim or Atalanta little teams mixing it at the top. No they dream is being rival to that other great Trust owned goliath Exeter city. A match on 1 May workers day. Imagine that. Stuart James an English man from Bristol will be there will a special Guardian pull out. He loves Swansea and their community ownership. Good enough for 'know your place Welshmen'. Huw Jenkins led the club to winning at Man Utd and beating Klopp. No wonder he is detested by the Trust activists. Far to big for his boots for a Swansea boy. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 22:44 - Nov 3 with 637 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 20:57 - Nov 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC said the Trust has a good case (from the information he had seen). He did not endorse the case at all. In fact he said it was the 'last resort' option. That is eating the pet dog.
All I have seen is the Trust promoting it as a first not last resort. Talks for a sale on the same terms were objected to by activists and mediation was not attended as the Trust were sniffy about the US representation.
The terms were the same according to the US people confirmed by the outgoing Chairman. Why the Trust did not accept them is something I cannot answer. The US people gave up believeing there was no point wasting their time in a acrimonious atmosphrere. This is not a surprise. It was not fair to expect volunteers to run the abuse.
The SCST is the exact opposite for the ideal template of Trusts in UK football. They motivations are to cash in and run giving the clubs owners a broken nose. What an advertisment eh? A template that goes to court with no money and subjected to obscene terms by their funders. They have slipped into a deep fear of the future, not a total belief in the future based on the Swansea way set up by people they loathe. Stone cold losers in my eyes.
They dream not of being of Hoffenheim or Atalanta little teams mixing it at the top. No they dream is being rival to that other great Trust owned goliath Exeter city. A match on 1 May workers day. Imagine that. Stuart James an English man from Bristol will be there will a special Guardian pull out. He loves Swansea and their community ownership. Good enough for 'know your place Welshmen'. Huw Jenkins led the club to winning at Man Utd and beating Klopp. No wonder he is detested by the Trust activists. Far to big for his boots for a Swansea boy. |
- Here you go again - even though a QC said the trust had a good case, you for some reason are intent on twisting it (in vain of course). Disingenuity in action again in your next sentence. You know full well it was wise to exhaust other alternatives prior to going to court.
- If they were the same terms why do we need to go to court to get them? How can it be promoted as first resort when you've admitted yourself there were months of negotiation&also the trust initiated mediation which the American shareholders wouldn't attend.
- Again your logic is flawed. If the Americans wanted to buy the trusts shares they would have bid for them the same as they bid for the sell outs. They didn't. When legal action was threatened they made an offer. Why on earth would they offer the same terms as the sell outs only to rescind then take their chances in court? Plus why wouldn't the trust have just balloted the members.
- cash in because they've been wronged&can potentially have more of an influence down the line as a result of the proceeds. Not meekly jumping into bed with a hedge fund group who's treated them with contempt. The Trust are frankly an inspiration to fans bodies throughout the league.
- Why not be skeptical for the future? These owners have no connection to the club or the area. We have no idea what their goal for the club is or what their exit strategy is. They've filed the company papers in Delaware and have just shuffled round the boardroom for no apparent reason. This is the last year of parachute payments. Ths trust are absolutely spot on to take measures to try and safeguard the club.
- you do not know the funders terms.
- If they are such losers, the court case won't be anything to worry about, the trust are no threat to your beloved Americans so there's no need for you try and discredit them at every turn.
- Some beautiful dramatic drivel in that last paragraph. Not sure how or why you think we're comparable to Hoffenheim or Atalanta (a champions league side). You're even more cuckoo than you come across if you think the people that appointed Bob Bradley, downgraded our academy&took out a lease on our stadium to find it was in poor condition then tried to sue the owners. And lost. Are leading us to that level!
- Not sure what Huws relevance is unless you're harking back to a question I asked earlier but ignored. Do you think the Americans will go after Huw and the sell outs if they lose the case?
- Yes how dare the guardian and other news media outlets report the shady dealings and acts around the sale of the club. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 12:07 - Nov 4 with 609 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 22:44 - Nov 3 by Chief |
- Here you go again - even though a QC said the trust had a good case, you for some reason are intent on twisting it (in vain of course). Disingenuity in action again in your next sentence. You know full well it was wise to exhaust other alternatives prior to going to court.
- If they were the same terms why do we need to go to court to get them? How can it be promoted as first resort when you've admitted yourself there were months of negotiation&also the trust initiated mediation which the American shareholders wouldn't attend.
- Again your logic is flawed. If the Americans wanted to buy the trusts shares they would have bid for them the same as they bid for the sell outs. They didn't. When legal action was threatened they made an offer. Why on earth would they offer the same terms as the sell outs only to rescind then take their chances in court? Plus why wouldn't the trust have just balloted the members.
- cash in because they've been wronged&can potentially have more of an influence down the line as a result of the proceeds. Not meekly jumping into bed with a hedge fund group who's treated them with contempt. The Trust are frankly an inspiration to fans bodies throughout the league.
- Why not be skeptical for the future? These owners have no connection to the club or the area. We have no idea what their goal for the club is or what their exit strategy is. They've filed the company papers in Delaware and have just shuffled round the boardroom for no apparent reason. This is the last year of parachute payments. Ths trust are absolutely spot on to take measures to try and safeguard the club.
- you do not know the funders terms.
- If they are such losers, the court case won't be anything to worry about, the trust are no threat to your beloved Americans so there's no need for you try and discredit them at every turn.
- Some beautiful dramatic drivel in that last paragraph. Not sure how or why you think we're comparable to Hoffenheim or Atalanta (a champions league side). You're even more cuckoo than you come across if you think the people that appointed Bob Bradley, downgraded our academy&took out a lease on our stadium to find it was in poor condition then tried to sue the owners. And lost. Are leading us to that level!
- Not sure what Huws relevance is unless you're harking back to a question I asked earlier but ignored. Do you think the Americans will go after Huw and the sell outs if they lose the case?
- Yes how dare the guardian and other news media outlets report the shady dealings and acts around the sale of the club. |
The Trust did not exhaust all the avenues. They did not show up for mediation talks. The Trust have been keen on legal action since 2016. It was the Trust who failed to attend for mediation according to press reports.
You do not understand the principles of selling. No sale will go ahead if the seller does not state they want to sell. The Trust stated they did not want to sell more than once. The enthusiam of selling is related to relegation. The US people asked the Trust in 2016 if they wanted to sell and got no reply. That is a cue to walk away. The Trust was split over the sale and consequently it could not happen. Their actions and words were not consistent.
The US people approached the sellers and asked them. "Do you want to sell?" They said yes. They then made an offer. They then asked the Trust the same question. They did not get a reply.
That is the crux of the matter. They had a second go with a mandate 2017 for the same terms and they still could not get a deal. The US people said the negiociation period was long because the Trust wanted and got a better terms than the previous sellers. In the end close to a deal there were two resignations an acrimony. Trust activists wanted no sale.
So why do they want legal action and a forced sale now?
Its obvious. Relegation and slide down the leagues thats why. It was a rush for the lifeboats as the hull had been holed and the shp was listing. Grab what you can and jump.
Guess what the hole has been fixed and the pumpsworked, te club is back on an upward trajectory. The Trust are heading in the oppositie direction because that is what they do.
They want to hold when the club is on a downward trajectory and want to sell when it is on an upward trajectory. Classic muddled thinking. They got an haircut. Becuase they go it wrong they need to go to court hoping for some technicality to undo their own mistakes. Its a massive risk and they have to give a massive cut to their funders.
When the workers committee of good honest folk have to hand over 5-10% of the clubs shares to the posh boy money lenders of Knightsbridge the process will be sadly complete. Poor paying the rich. Thats the way the world turns regretibily . Stuart James will be in tears . | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 12:39 - Nov 4 with 606 views | chad |
| NSR Bury on 16:11 - Nov 3 by ReslovenSwan1 |
My motives is to discourage legal action which is bad for the club, the owners of the club and the Trust itself. The only winners are the funders legal people and their assoicates.
I have applied logic to the the legal case and recommend an independant assessment by a respected business expert, of the situation before the Trust press the red nuclear button. I consider legal actioin in is in business terms illogical. This assessemt completeted in 2-3 months should consider outcomes and strategy and scenarios for sucess and failure. Swansea is on an upward trajectory.
The tracks three mile ahead need to be checked to avoid bad outcomes. Impartial Reolven logic with no cash in the game.
I do not talk legalities or moral questions. This is business. I talk outcomes. Carillion had a sob story. Guess what? No one is interested.
The Trust will sue for £21m 2016 prices and lose roughly half of that in fees and costs for a 100% win. This will leave them around £12m - £14m which no one disputes because they have no figures of their own. The projected value of the club in the Premier league is now around £200m based on the Burnley valuation. If Swansea get promoted the Trust s valuation would be around £42m.
Based on a upper Derby valuation the Trust is currently worth £8-10m. Therefore the gains from legal action coud be as low as £2-4m. If Swansea return to the PL the valuation losses will be a staggering £30m. THIRTY MILLION. this will end up in the pockets of Uncle Sam and the sellers or whoever buys the shares minus the funders and legal fees.
You want figures?. I have given them to you as broad brush estimates from what I have read. The members actions makes no sense. Given the chance to own a football club they appear be preparing to give half of it away with all potential upsides gone. It will be a zombie fund whereby the money notionally seen as an insurance become less and less with every year that passes to the point of total irrelevance.
Professional advice is recommended. |
A ah, still desperately grasping figures from the air and presenting them as fact
Your castles in the air logo very apropos
But whose this “Reolven”
Oh Res love, please don’t tell us the one giving all this top business advice, does not even have the wherewithal to get their name right, whilst referring to themselves in the third person.
That would be very disappointing
Clickity clack, clickity clack, clickity clack | | | |
| NSR Bury on 13:52 - Nov 4 with 601 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 12:39 - Nov 4 by chad |
A ah, still desperately grasping figures from the air and presenting them as fact
Your castles in the air logo very apropos
But whose this “Reolven”
Oh Res love, please don’t tell us the one giving all this top business advice, does not even have the wherewithal to get their name right, whilst referring to themselves in the third person.
That would be very disappointing
Clickity clack, clickity clack, clickity clack |
£30m sitting there for the Trust. Promotion means big dosh. Burnley quoted at £200m. Trust worth £42m based on that. Why then sue for £12-14m?
Remember that figure. £30m. I do not consider the Trust s strategists are up to the job. They cannot do even basic maths. Cooper is looking like the real deal day by day. We all thought he was here because he was the cheap one. Another bad misjudgement by the members. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 14:49 - Nov 4 with 589 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 12:07 - Nov 4 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust did not exhaust all the avenues. They did not show up for mediation talks. The Trust have been keen on legal action since 2016. It was the Trust who failed to attend for mediation according to press reports.
You do not understand the principles of selling. No sale will go ahead if the seller does not state they want to sell. The Trust stated they did not want to sell more than once. The enthusiam of selling is related to relegation. The US people asked the Trust in 2016 if they wanted to sell and got no reply. That is a cue to walk away. The Trust was split over the sale and consequently it could not happen. Their actions and words were not consistent.
The US people approached the sellers and asked them. "Do you want to sell?" They said yes. They then made an offer. They then asked the Trust the same question. They did not get a reply.
That is the crux of the matter. They had a second go with a mandate 2017 for the same terms and they still could not get a deal. The US people said the negiociation period was long because the Trust wanted and got a better terms than the previous sellers. In the end close to a deal there were two resignations an acrimony. Trust activists wanted no sale.
So why do they want legal action and a forced sale now?
Its obvious. Relegation and slide down the leagues thats why. It was a rush for the lifeboats as the hull had been holed and the shp was listing. Grab what you can and jump.
Guess what the hole has been fixed and the pumpsworked, te club is back on an upward trajectory. The Trust are heading in the oppositie direction because that is what they do.
They want to hold when the club is on a downward trajectory and want to sell when it is on an upward trajectory. Classic muddled thinking. They got an haircut. Becuase they go it wrong they need to go to court hoping for some technicality to undo their own mistakes. Its a massive risk and they have to give a massive cut to their funders.
When the workers committee of good honest folk have to hand over 5-10% of the clubs shares to the posh boy money lenders of Knightsbridge the process will be sadly complete. Poor paying the rich. Thats the way the world turns regretibily . Stuart James will be in tears . |
- They did, the American shareholders wouldn't attend.
- Your principle is completely false. Sales occur all the time despite the seller starting at a 'not for sale' stance. I prefer the principle that everything has a price. Far more realistic.
- Correct, the trust didn't want to sell - why would they have wanted to at that point? The club was doing well, relations between the owners&club was good&the trust had good relations with the other shareholders.
- Not sure why you think the Americans asked the trust of they wanted to sell in 2016. The Americans themselves have admitted they excluded the trust when they were buying shares. The sell outs also kept the sale from the trust.
- there's no evidence the offer was for the same terms but all logic suggests it wasn't.
At the end of the day you can keep droning on and on about the illogical and false statements that have been repeatedly discounted.
Thankfully the Trust aren't swayed by naysaying plants like you spreading American and anti-trust propaganda. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 15:12 - Nov 4 with 588 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 13:52 - Nov 4 by ReslovenSwan1 |
£30m sitting there for the Trust. Promotion means big dosh. Burnley quoted at £200m. Trust worth £42m based on that. Why then sue for £12-14m?
Remember that figure. £30m. I do not consider the Trust s strategists are up to the job. They cannot do even basic maths. Cooper is looking like the real deal day by day. We all thought he was here because he was the cheap one. Another bad misjudgement by the members. |
The trusts shares are worth a lot less now (championship) than what they were at the time of the sale (Premier league).
Correct?
There is an opportunity to have their shares bought by the Americans at Premier League prices.
Correct?
But you are advocating walking away from that opportunity in the hope that not only 1) we get promoted and also 2) someone wants to buy them. One or both caveats unlikely/uncertain.
Correct?
Yet the trust apparently can't do basic maths (but you apparently can) .
 | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 15:37 - Nov 4 with 584 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 15:12 - Nov 4 by Chief |
The trusts shares are worth a lot less now (championship) than what they were at the time of the sale (Premier league).
Correct?
There is an opportunity to have their shares bought by the Americans at Premier League prices.
Correct?
But you are advocating walking away from that opportunity in the hope that not only 1) we get promoted and also 2) someone wants to buy them. One or both caveats unlikely/uncertain.
Correct?
Yet the trust apparently can't do basic maths (but you apparently can) .
|
Any agreed solution is good for me. A forced solution involving giving a big cash sum to third parties is not a good result and represents a catastrophic failure by the people entrusted to run the Trust.
The Trust is suposed to be "Not for Profit". The Trust actions has opened it for a feeding frenzy for unscrupulous ambulance chasers. The worst possible result.
The Trusts assets should not be accessile to oportunistic money lenders . They themselves hedge. They will loan money to the Trust and hedge against losing.
If the club returns to the PL there will be a group of peope that will cream of miliions from the Trust s shares. This includes the sellers who buy at the discounted 2016 price , the US people the funders and the legal people. The losers would be the Trust. The Trust should be buying now not selling. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 16:12 - Nov 4 with 572 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 15:37 - Nov 4 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Any agreed solution is good for me. A forced solution involving giving a big cash sum to third parties is not a good result and represents a catastrophic failure by the people entrusted to run the Trust.
The Trust is suposed to be "Not for Profit". The Trust actions has opened it for a feeding frenzy for unscrupulous ambulance chasers. The worst possible result.
The Trusts assets should not be accessile to oportunistic money lenders . They themselves hedge. They will loan money to the Trust and hedge against losing.
If the club returns to the PL there will be a group of peope that will cream of miliions from the Trust s shares. This includes the sellers who buy at the discounted 2016 price , the US people the funders and the legal people. The losers would be the Trust. The Trust should be buying now not selling. |
- Not going to be agreed solution now is there. Unless the Americans fancy reimbursing the trust for all costs spent getting to this point and actually bid for the trusts shares. As you say, nows the time to buy. By your logic they're foolish in bothering going to court and having to pay legal fees.
- you've been banging on for ages about the trust being useless because they haven't made money over the years. Now you're implying they should be not for profit. Again literally clutching at any straw to try and discredit the trust. Constantly trying to twist any piece of information to suit your vendetta even if it means contradicting yourself!.
- and what sparked the trusts actions that necessitated litigation and costs? I'll tell you because you'll ignore that question because you don't like the answer but it's fact -, because they were wrongfully and deceitfully excluded from the sale by the Americans and the sellouts.
- as above - its unfortunate we're in this situation but here we are.
- whos creaming off what? And if we don't get promoted? There is more chance we don't than do of course but that doesn't suit your latest pretty random line of attack. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 18:57 - Nov 4 with 552 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 16:12 - Nov 4 by Chief |
- Not going to be agreed solution now is there. Unless the Americans fancy reimbursing the trust for all costs spent getting to this point and actually bid for the trusts shares. As you say, nows the time to buy. By your logic they're foolish in bothering going to court and having to pay legal fees.
- you've been banging on for ages about the trust being useless because they haven't made money over the years. Now you're implying they should be not for profit. Again literally clutching at any straw to try and discredit the trust. Constantly trying to twist any piece of information to suit your vendetta even if it means contradicting yourself!.
- and what sparked the trusts actions that necessitated litigation and costs? I'll tell you because you'll ignore that question because you don't like the answer but it's fact -, because they were wrongfully and deceitfully excluded from the sale by the Americans and the sellouts.
- as above - its unfortunate we're in this situation but here we are.
- whos creaming off what? And if we don't get promoted? There is more chance we don't than do of course but that doesn't suit your latest pretty random line of attack. |
You do not understand the "not for profit " mantra. This does not mean they cannot make a profit. It simply means they do not pay dividends to the board or members out of the profits. The profits should be re invested in the club. Exeter city invests £75,000 per year of the members money directly into the club. SCST has invested zero after the formation of the club in 2002. Welsh water does not pay dividends.
Legal action allows 3 rd party s big profits from the Trusts notional "not for Profit" assets. The Trust is borrowing money for the funding at very high terms which members do not seem to know. They have presumably checked it is in line with their constitution. Money has driven this process and the members have given their permission by buying into a dubious narrative promoted by websites like this. This was based a fake narrative .
a) The US owners are unscupulous hedge fund asset strippers FALSE
b) The club will fall down the leagues FALSE
c) The US owners are desperate to sell FALSE.
d) The US owners were looking for a quick flip profit FALSE
e) Cooper is useless but was a cheap option FALSE
f) Legal action has a very good chance of success QUESTIONABLE.
g) The potential for asset growth post 2016 is very small FALSE
h) Legal fees and funding costs will be reasonable. FALSE.
Fan forums like Planetswans and SCFC2 are very useful in planting a fake narrative these days. The members were very easy meat and did what they were told. [Post edited 4 Nov 2020 18:59]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 12:01 - Nov 5 with 510 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 18:57 - Nov 4 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You do not understand the "not for profit " mantra. This does not mean they cannot make a profit. It simply means they do not pay dividends to the board or members out of the profits. The profits should be re invested in the club. Exeter city invests £75,000 per year of the members money directly into the club. SCST has invested zero after the formation of the club in 2002. Welsh water does not pay dividends.
Legal action allows 3 rd party s big profits from the Trusts notional "not for Profit" assets. The Trust is borrowing money for the funding at very high terms which members do not seem to know. They have presumably checked it is in line with their constitution. Money has driven this process and the members have given their permission by buying into a dubious narrative promoted by websites like this. This was based a fake narrative .
a) The US owners are unscupulous hedge fund asset strippers FALSE
b) The club will fall down the leagues FALSE
c) The US owners are desperate to sell FALSE.
d) The US owners were looking for a quick flip profit FALSE
e) Cooper is useless but was a cheap option FALSE
f) Legal action has a very good chance of success QUESTIONABLE.
g) The potential for asset growth post 2016 is very small FALSE
h) Legal fees and funding costs will be reasonable. FALSE.
Fan forums like Planetswans and SCFC2 are very useful in planting a fake narrative these days. The members were very easy meat and did what they were told. [Post edited 4 Nov 2020 18:59]
|
- Neither our previous owners or current owners have put money into the club. Why do you criticise the trust alone and not them? Good for Exeter. I'm sure as a supporters trust they would engage the services of professionals where appropriate and they like our trust would still be fulfilling their 'not for profit' mantra. Similarly DCWW regularly engages outside bodies to go about their business without compromising their not for profit tag line. Again you're showing random bias against the trust.
- The narrative that they were unjustly excluded from the sale is not false. The Americans themselves have admitted it as fact.
- a) They are consortium of investors with no prior link to the club or area (most of which have no sporting background either) who are here to make a buck. They fit the bill as a hedgedfund. Where do I start with the unscrupulous comment!? Between buying the club behind the backs of the local supporters trust, selling off players cheaply, sacking the long serving chairman, axing long serving boardmembers like Penny and Keefe, screwing over the life members, need I go on?
- agreed on b and c - can't see them selling at a loss. D - relegation may have curtailed that. E - not sure relevance of that but I'm a big fan of Cooper. F - I'll take an independent QCs word on that, G - not sure what you're getting at, H - has anyone said they'd be reasonable?
Not sure what is meant by your last comment either. Members can vote each whatever way they want and anyone on these forums can say what they want.
For example you and others do speak out about the trust which is good. | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 12:09 - Nov 5 with 508 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 12:01 - Nov 5 by Chief |
- Neither our previous owners or current owners have put money into the club. Why do you criticise the trust alone and not them? Good for Exeter. I'm sure as a supporters trust they would engage the services of professionals where appropriate and they like our trust would still be fulfilling their 'not for profit' mantra. Similarly DCWW regularly engages outside bodies to go about their business without compromising their not for profit tag line. Again you're showing random bias against the trust.
- The narrative that they were unjustly excluded from the sale is not false. The Americans themselves have admitted it as fact.
- a) They are consortium of investors with no prior link to the club or area (most of which have no sporting background either) who are here to make a buck. They fit the bill as a hedgedfund. Where do I start with the unscrupulous comment!? Between buying the club behind the backs of the local supporters trust, selling off players cheaply, sacking the long serving chairman, axing long serving boardmembers like Penny and Keefe, screwing over the life members, need I go on?
- agreed on b and c - can't see them selling at a loss. D - relegation may have curtailed that. E - not sure relevance of that but I'm a big fan of Cooper. F - I'll take an independent QCs word on that, G - not sure what you're getting at, H - has anyone said they'd be reasonable?
Not sure what is meant by your last comment either. Members can vote each whatever way they want and anyone on these forums can say what they want.
For example you and others do speak out about the trust which is good. |
However, acting like a spoilt petalant child and I have to take you task on it. For example you've seen recently that a premier league club could be being bought for a certain figure above what the trust would receive via legal action. A normal person with no agenda may have said something like:
"In light of what the going rate for Premier clubs is these days, would it be worth the trust considering holding off from legal action (especially with our decent start to the season) & reevaluate at a later point"?
But you -
"Burnley are getting sold - the trust are dumb, the trust can't do maths, the trust are deliberately harming the club, the members are twp... STOP LEGAL ACTION NOW" bla bla bla | |
| |
| NSR Bury on 13:02 - Nov 5 with 498 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| NSR Bury on 12:09 - Nov 5 by Chief |
However, acting like a spoilt petalant child and I have to take you task on it. For example you've seen recently that a premier league club could be being bought for a certain figure above what the trust would receive via legal action. A normal person with no agenda may have said something like:
"In light of what the going rate for Premier clubs is these days, would it be worth the trust considering holding off from legal action (especially with our decent start to the season) & reevaluate at a later point"?
But you -
"Burnley are getting sold - the trust are dumb, the trust can't do maths, the trust are deliberately harming the club, the members are twp... STOP LEGAL ACTION NOW" bla bla bla |
I have no reason to treat the Trust members gently. I consider looking at the evidence that they are not acting in the interests of SCFC. Legal action has very little upside as the Trust cannot manage money as is evident frm their wretched 18 year history. They are getting 0.15% pa interest on their money but always get a welcome and a free coffee at Santander.
The down side is a 100% Trust win would cause short term chaos in the Board trigger in fighting and may result in a cash call for the owners perpetuating a fire sale of players shutting of the academy completely and the redundancty of vital long standing coaches and administartive staff.
After legal victory all other clubs will look on fan invlovement with great sceptisim and fan ownership will be finished in Swansea for good.
I look at outcomes you wallow in accusations of mistreatment and unfairness which is a trait of stone cold losers. There are plenty of them around south Wales. Pay £5 and have a good moan at the SCST. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| NSR Bury on 14:50 - Nov 5 with 485 views | Chief |
| NSR Bury on 13:02 - Nov 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have no reason to treat the Trust members gently. I consider looking at the evidence that they are not acting in the interests of SCFC. Legal action has very little upside as the Trust cannot manage money as is evident frm their wretched 18 year history. They are getting 0.15% pa interest on their money but always get a welcome and a free coffee at Santander.
The down side is a 100% Trust win would cause short term chaos in the Board trigger in fighting and may result in a cash call for the owners perpetuating a fire sale of players shutting of the academy completely and the redundancty of vital long standing coaches and administartive staff.
After legal victory all other clubs will look on fan invlovement with great sceptisim and fan ownership will be finished in Swansea for good.
I look at outcomes you wallow in accusations of mistreatment and unfairness which is a trait of stone cold losers. There are plenty of them around south Wales. Pay £5 and have a good moan at the SCST. |
- Gently no, with balanced and respect yes. You are seemingly incapable of doing this though. For no real reason. You must have some hidden agenda. Just disagreeing with their methods wouldn't make sense. Literally every thing they've ever done and are doing you slant against them. Notice I do not do treat the Americans with such default contempt.
- 'wretched' - silly unwarranted petulant overreaction again.
- the Americans as 'experienced investors' should be prepared for the eventuality shouldn't they? According to you they've been willing to pay for these shares for years. Why suddenly 'chaos' at this point?
- No doubt the Americans may use it as an excuse for their actions but you and they would obviously be being disingenuous. The money would come from the Americans personal accounts - not the football clubs. So how or why would it suddenly result in a fire sale, cash call or any other detrimental thing they may wish to inflict on the club is not a result of the trusts action. But they may twist it that way who knows?
- Other clubs? You actually mean other potential club owners who were planning to buy clubs and sideline supporters trusts.
- who's wallowing in anything? The trust are taking action to remedy their wrongs - the complete opposite of what you are claiming.
- or don't pay £5 then moan and attack them at every opportunity and achieve nothing see. The trust are doing something - what about you? Nothing meekly drifting along with you star spangled glasses on. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
