| When Huw Jenkins talked about 10:41 - Sep 20 with 7226 views | swancity |
Selling the Club which would help “ take it to the next level “
I didn’t think he meant relegation under absent owners and not having a tin pot to piss in as that’s where we seem to be heading
Surely no one is still gullible and naive enough to believe any of that crap...
|  |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |  |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:36 - Sep 21 with 1284 views | jasper_T |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:30 - Sep 21 by Garyjack |
So with our wage bill 'maxed out' we resign Bony and Ayew on a combined wage of 200k a week. Did the yanks fund that then did they? Did they hell! They allowed their best signing 'Huw' as i recall them stating, to blow every single penny of the money we received on outgoing players, on two signings who have had a major impact on crippling the club financially. The Yanks have put zero revenue into the club as is evident from the 'loan' from Silverstein. Why didn't Kaplan and Levein themselves loan the club cash? There's not a good picture being painted here is there! |
They've been making short-term cashflow loans to the club since relegation. Whether loading the club up with long-term ownership debt is a good thing is up to you. Sure seems to be making it hard for Newcastle to sell what with Mike Ashley needing his £150m back first. | | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 00:06 - Sep 22 with 1243 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:36 - Sep 21 by jasper_T |
They've been making short-term cashflow loans to the club since relegation. Whether loading the club up with long-term ownership debt is a good thing is up to you. Sure seems to be making it hard for Newcastle to sell what with Mike Ashley needing his £150m back first. |
Jasper, you seem to be avoiding my reply to you on the other thread. |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 00:11 - Sep 22 with 1242 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:30 - Sep 21 by Garyjack |
So with our wage bill 'maxed out' we resign Bony and Ayew on a combined wage of 200k a week. Did the yanks fund that then did they? Did they hell! They allowed their best signing 'Huw' as i recall them stating, to blow every single penny of the money we received on outgoing players, on two signings who have had a major impact on crippling the club financially. The Yanks have put zero revenue into the club as is evident from the 'loan' from Silverstein. Why didn't Kaplan and Levein themselves loan the club cash? There's not a good picture being painted here is there! |
We were in the final throws of relegation, the fans were calling for signings so we made them. If we signed nobody they would also have been criticised for accepting our fate. Of course they haven’t put a penny of their own money into the club in the form of a gift, they were never expected to. They improved revenue streams, unfortunately it coincided with relegation so those revenue streams have not been capitalised on.
Make no mistake; the old owners didn’t sell just for the good of the club. They sold to get rich... but to make out there was no merit to what they said is jus false. We were sinking under them and they knew it, which is why they sold when they could. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 00:37 - Sep 22 with 1245 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:30 - Sep 21 by Garyjack |
So with our wage bill 'maxed out' we resign Bony and Ayew on a combined wage of 200k a week. Did the yanks fund that then did they? Did they hell! They allowed their best signing 'Huw' as i recall them stating, to blow every single penny of the money we received on outgoing players, on two signings who have had a major impact on crippling the club financially. The Yanks have put zero revenue into the club as is evident from the 'loan' from Silverstein. Why didn't Kaplan and Levein themselves loan the club cash? There's not a good picture being painted here is there! |
Silverstein has taken a postion on the board with the expectation that the loan he has given will be turned into new shares once agreed with the other owners or subject to any conditions that have been agreed. This suggests that the loan does not need repaying which is good for the club. This has to be agreed with the Welsh owners who can contribute if they want to. This is my understanding. You have not read the report properly as it stated that the other US owners had match funded. It is not clear if this is the exact same amount of money or a proportional amount to maintain their 69% ? holding. The US owners have put revenue into the club to pay the bills this is clear.
You have been told they will never put money into the club. (wrong) and they are looking to get out as soon as possible (wrong). They seem to me to be decent owners who will spend their money carefully and as I say, will make Cooper and Winters "sweat the asset". This means getting the most of players already at the club including the academy . The much praised Potter wasted £4m on players drummed out of the club by Cooper. (McKay, Celina, John and Asoro). |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 07:10 - Sep 22 with 1217 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 00:37 - Sep 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Silverstein has taken a postion on the board with the expectation that the loan he has given will be turned into new shares once agreed with the other owners or subject to any conditions that have been agreed. This suggests that the loan does not need repaying which is good for the club. This has to be agreed with the Welsh owners who can contribute if they want to. This is my understanding. You have not read the report properly as it stated that the other US owners had match funded. It is not clear if this is the exact same amount of money or a proportional amount to maintain their 69% ? holding. The US owners have put revenue into the club to pay the bills this is clear.
You have been told they will never put money into the club. (wrong) and they are looking to get out as soon as possible (wrong). They seem to me to be decent owners who will spend their money carefully and as I say, will make Cooper and Winters "sweat the asset". This means getting the most of players already at the club including the academy . The much praised Potter wasted £4m on players drummed out of the club by Cooper. (McKay, Celina, John and Asoro). |
Well this isn't strictly true either. As I said earlier, currently, Silverstein and K&L have done nothing different here than what Martin Morgan used to do when he had a larger shareholding. Back then no other shareholders matched his input&this time K&L didn't have to but seems they did to match intent. What interest are they charging? These loans could potentially be called in - Silversteins actual agreement isn't clear and he can't lose. Swansea City is essentially now his cash machine ready pay out whenever he likes.
You're completely contradicting yourself in the last paragraph. How does selling Celina at a loss, telling McKay and John they can go for nothing and then actually spending money on Lowe who's a nice to have but not essential (and there's more taxing areas to address) 'sweating the asset' and getting the most out of the players we've got!? |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 14:21 - Sep 22 with 1170 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 07:10 - Sep 22 by Chief |
Well this isn't strictly true either. As I said earlier, currently, Silverstein and K&L have done nothing different here than what Martin Morgan used to do when he had a larger shareholding. Back then no other shareholders matched his input&this time K&L didn't have to but seems they did to match intent. What interest are they charging? These loans could potentially be called in - Silversteins actual agreement isn't clear and he can't lose. Swansea City is essentially now his cash machine ready pay out whenever he likes.
You're completely contradicting yourself in the last paragraph. How does selling Celina at a loss, telling McKay and John they can go for nothing and then actually spending money on Lowe who's a nice to have but not essential (and there's more taxing areas to address) 'sweating the asset' and getting the most out of the players we've got!? |
The cash input intitally as a loan was promoted by the club as a 'significant investment' with Mr Siverstein joining the boards and taking an active role in the club.
Wol stated
"Given that the loan is expected to be converted into shares at a later date - at the discretion of Silverstein - other shareholders face the stark option of investing or seeing their shares diluted".
This is clearly not the same of the earlier loans. It obviously has features that allow the Investor to withdraw his cash. All I know a never ending threat of leagal action is not good for the club. There really is now no room for passengers. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 16:39 - Sep 22 with 1138 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 14:21 - Sep 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The cash input intitally as a loan was promoted by the club as a 'significant investment' with Mr Siverstein joining the boards and taking an active role in the club.
Wol stated
"Given that the loan is expected to be converted into shares at a later date - at the discretion of Silverstein - other shareholders face the stark option of investing or seeing their shares diluted".
This is clearly not the same of the earlier loans. It obviously has features that allow the Investor to withdraw his cash. All I know a never ending threat of leagal action is not good for the club. There really is now no room for passengers. |
Yea not debating the appealing&emotive language the club and walesonline used to describe these developments at all. They fluffed it up to the full. Read the small print and as it stands its purely a loan with no amounts or repayment details released.
And i also agree that the 'investor' probably has the ability to cash out. Literally no risk at all on their behalf hence my previous comparison about us becoming their personal cash.
Not sure why you mention legal action in relation to this. But for me, this developnent is more reason to go down the legal route. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:18 - Sep 22 with 1129 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 16:39 - Sep 22 by Chief |
Yea not debating the appealing&emotive language the club and walesonline used to describe these developments at all. They fluffed it up to the full. Read the small print and as it stands its purely a loan with no amounts or repayment details released.
And i also agree that the 'investor' probably has the ability to cash out. Literally no risk at all on their behalf hence my previous comparison about us becoming their personal cash.
Not sure why you mention legal action in relation to this. But for me, this developnent is more reason to go down the legal route. |
The Trust are passengers and are not needed by Swansea city. They have not put bean into the club since the original £200,000 in 2002. Now after 18 years with the club in a difficult period they have nothing to offer having blown a six figure sum on London legal firms. They will never invest their money in Swansea city.
You live in parallel universe one where, in a time of crisis, people putting the money into the club to pay the bills, with the aim of an investment are bad for the club while those who look the other way when cash is required are somehow a force for good. Owners with no cash are no use to anyone. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:09 - Sep 22 with 1113 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:18 - Sep 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust are passengers and are not needed by Swansea city. They have not put bean into the club since the original £200,000 in 2002. Now after 18 years with the club in a difficult period they have nothing to offer having blown a six figure sum on London legal firms. They will never invest their money in Swansea city.
You live in parallel universe one where, in a time of crisis, people putting the money into the club to pay the bills, with the aim of an investment are bad for the club while those who look the other way when cash is required are somehow a force for good. Owners with no cash are no use to anyone. |
You're going to back to your party line of confusing the trust with a hedgefund while also ignoring the points I've made.
Was the trust ever set up to inject cash into the football club? If isn't and never was designed to be a money making tool to embellish the football club's coffers. And just to confirm the current owners haven't put any money into the football club either. These are loans that could be pulled out at any point as far as we know.
Well money has been used to buy a player from Wigan actually (who while he is decent, was hardly an essential purchase).
Well if the trust are successful in their case they will no longer be owners of shares so you'll have your wish. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:46 - Sep 22 with 1097 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:09 - Sep 22 by Chief |
You're going to back to your party line of confusing the trust with a hedgefund while also ignoring the points I've made.
Was the trust ever set up to inject cash into the football club? If isn't and never was designed to be a money making tool to embellish the football club's coffers. And just to confirm the current owners haven't put any money into the football club either. These are loans that could be pulled out at any point as far as we know.
Well money has been used to buy a player from Wigan actually (who while he is decent, was hardly an essential purchase).
Well if the trust are successful in their case they will no longer be owners of shares so you'll have your wish. |
The Trust was set up to help the club at different times in the lower leagues. They do not belong in the Championship and premier leagues unless they fully accept their limitations. I have given it some thought and that means a holding big enough to maintain a place on the baord and no more. This means a 5% holding with cash used to maintain that holding. In theory a 5% holding with £15m in the bank if a sale had been secured in the Premier league. I actually promoted this idea on another forum. At least £10m would be actively managed.
The stark realitiy is that the Trust are effectively irrelevant if they do not manage their money efficiently. They will effectively be funding Santander bank. The Trust outside the club would simple become a dormant zombie fund. This is an appalling vision and the members are entirely to blame. Once out of the club no self respecting local business men would go anywhere near such a moribund institution. It will go down in history as a mistake to include the fans on the board of the club. They hve not grown into the job of club owners. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:44 - Sep 22 with 1073 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:46 - Sep 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust was set up to help the club at different times in the lower leagues. They do not belong in the Championship and premier leagues unless they fully accept their limitations. I have given it some thought and that means a holding big enough to maintain a place on the baord and no more. This means a 5% holding with cash used to maintain that holding. In theory a 5% holding with £15m in the bank if a sale had been secured in the Premier league. I actually promoted this idea on another forum. At least £10m would be actively managed.
The stark realitiy is that the Trust are effectively irrelevant if they do not manage their money efficiently. They will effectively be funding Santander bank. The Trust outside the club would simple become a dormant zombie fund. This is an appalling vision and the members are entirely to blame. Once out of the club no self respecting local business men would go anywhere near such a moribund institution. It will go down in history as a mistake to include the fans on the board of the club. They hve not grown into the job of club owners. |
Has it ever been stated that the trusts remit ended if or when we climbed out of the lower leagues? No. Did you expect the trust to walk away once we got promoted to the championship? With success brings outside interest like owners with affiliation to Swansea City or South Wales which is exactly why the trust is very relevant in the league's upper echelons. The trust is fully aware of its limitations - part time football supporters with no major funds, that's no secret.
So again, and I keep asking this, who would buy the trust's shares? It's not a feasible idea - the current owners have shown that you can have full control of the club without needing the trust's shares.
Remember the trust have been involved in the club in the upper league's for going on 15years now, 7 of that in the prem.
Maybe this 5% shareholding theory of yours could have been achieved through engagement&mediation? But as we know, the Americans decided against that.
You don't seem to be able to make your mind up, do you want the trust as part owners or not? and you're saying they're irrelevant now (although they seem to be relevant enough to have some passionate detractors funnily enough) so what you're suggesting is of little difference anyway? | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 21:37 - Sep 22 with 1049 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:44 - Sep 22 by Chief |
Has it ever been stated that the trusts remit ended if or when we climbed out of the lower leagues? No. Did you expect the trust to walk away once we got promoted to the championship? With success brings outside interest like owners with affiliation to Swansea City or South Wales which is exactly why the trust is very relevant in the league's upper echelons. The trust is fully aware of its limitations - part time football supporters with no major funds, that's no secret.
So again, and I keep asking this, who would buy the trust's shares? It's not a feasible idea - the current owners have shown that you can have full control of the club without needing the trust's shares.
Remember the trust have been involved in the club in the upper league's for going on 15years now, 7 of that in the prem.
Maybe this 5% shareholding theory of yours could have been achieved through engagement&mediation? But as we know, the Americans decided against that.
You don't seem to be able to make your mind up, do you want the trust as part owners or not? and you're saying they're irrelevant now (although they seem to be relevant enough to have some passionate detractors funnily enough) so what you're suggesting is of little difference anyway? |
A positive Trust with imagination and ideas is a good idea. The Welsh version has come up well short and totally out of their depth. Their only strategy was getting to 25% and that was never feasible.
They do represent fans view in way I suppose. The blame culture is high on their agenda. Mr Silverstein might be interested in the Trust s holding if things go well for him and he feels a warm Welsh welcome and he enjoys the Gower. It has to be at the right price of course. This will be well short of the 2016 price. The Trust never seemed interested in selling before 2016.
The Trust people simply do not understand the glory years were unprecedented and are very unlikely to happen again. Only Burnley can match Swansea using a brutal mechanical style and have some way to go to match Swansea's 7 seasons.
In the 2002 -2016 period the Trust were never asked for anything. I the same period Stoke City (below Swansea in the league) racked up debts of £180m to their owners. How much does Cardiff own Mr Tan? Trust loyalists claim Huw Jenkins got lucky and then demanded his removal. He could not have done more for them. He multiplied their holding by 100 times and put two US buyers with cash on a desk in front of them. Now he is labelled a greedy sellout. These are all the features of a spoilt 18 year brat who does not understand the facts of life.
A Trust with 5% and prepared to invest is of use. A zombie fund with £10m in the bank will always get a smile and a cup of tea at Santander but no use to Swansea city at all. They will be seen by the business community a toxic litigous activists best kept well away from the club.
The circumstances of the collapse of the 2017 talks will come out eventually. The buyer waked away frustrated and critical of the Trust. Two Chairman resignations during the talks indicate all was not well in the ranks.
Who knows th impressive CV of the new leaders will lead to a new approach and a respect for money. Hopefully the showboating will be off the agenda. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:13 - Sep 22 with 1041 views | Garyjack |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:46 - Sep 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust was set up to help the club at different times in the lower leagues. They do not belong in the Championship and premier leagues unless they fully accept their limitations. I have given it some thought and that means a holding big enough to maintain a place on the baord and no more. This means a 5% holding with cash used to maintain that holding. In theory a 5% holding with £15m in the bank if a sale had been secured in the Premier league. I actually promoted this idea on another forum. At least £10m would be actively managed.
The stark realitiy is that the Trust are effectively irrelevant if they do not manage their money efficiently. They will effectively be funding Santander bank. The Trust outside the club would simple become a dormant zombie fund. This is an appalling vision and the members are entirely to blame. Once out of the club no self respecting local business men would go anywhere near such a moribund institution. It will go down in history as a mistake to include the fans on the board of the club. They hve not grown into the job of club owners. |
You're a real crackpot aren't you! You're basing these figures of yours on the basis that the trust was equally involved in the share sale in the way the 'sell outs' were. That is clearly not the case is it, and proven by the fact that the Yanks insisted that the 'sell outs' give up their voting rights so that they had a 75%+ shareholding, which effectively meant that they could dilute the trust shares at anytime.
But hey! Let's go with your fantasy notion that this did actually happen. What would you suggest the trust did with this £15m of yours? Because reading between the lines it's kind of obvious that you believe that while the 'sell outs' walked away with their millions, the trust should be left with plugging the financial blackhole that they left behind and was not of their making!
Of course, your second paragraph is nothing more than word salad.
"A word salad, or schizophasia, is a "confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases", most often used to describe a symptom of a neurological or mental disorder." |  | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 23:40 - Sep 22 with 1016 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 21:37 - Sep 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
A positive Trust with imagination and ideas is a good idea. The Welsh version has come up well short and totally out of their depth. Their only strategy was getting to 25% and that was never feasible.
They do represent fans view in way I suppose. The blame culture is high on their agenda. Mr Silverstein might be interested in the Trust s holding if things go well for him and he feels a warm Welsh welcome and he enjoys the Gower. It has to be at the right price of course. This will be well short of the 2016 price. The Trust never seemed interested in selling before 2016.
The Trust people simply do not understand the glory years were unprecedented and are very unlikely to happen again. Only Burnley can match Swansea using a brutal mechanical style and have some way to go to match Swansea's 7 seasons.
In the 2002 -2016 period the Trust were never asked for anything. I the same period Stoke City (below Swansea in the league) racked up debts of £180m to their owners. How much does Cardiff own Mr Tan? Trust loyalists claim Huw Jenkins got lucky and then demanded his removal. He could not have done more for them. He multiplied their holding by 100 times and put two US buyers with cash on a desk in front of them. Now he is labelled a greedy sellout. These are all the features of a spoilt 18 year brat who does not understand the facts of life.
A Trust with 5% and prepared to invest is of use. A zombie fund with £10m in the bank will always get a smile and a cup of tea at Santander but no use to Swansea city at all. They will be seen by the business community a toxic litigous activists best kept well away from the club.
The circumstances of the collapse of the 2017 talks will come out eventually. The buyer waked away frustrated and critical of the Trust. Two Chairman resignations during the talks indicate all was not well in the ranks.
Who knows th impressive CV of the new leaders will lead to a new approach and a respect for money. Hopefully the showboating will be off the agenda. |
-why was 25% never feasible? The obstacle I can see was the collective greed of the sellouts&Americans.
-you're deliberately conflating blame culture with doing their job - questioning decisions&holding the decision makers to account.
-not sure why you have so much faith in Silver. He obviously doesn't have too much faith himself or he'd had actually bought in&acquired shares. Not loans with potentially empty promises. For all we know he could pull his loan out tomorrow&walk away(with some interest too).
-don't see the relevance of your glory years statement.
-don't see the relevance of Stoke or Cardiff comparisons apart from maybe the fact that getting loans from outside parties is dodgy?
-can't speak for Huw detractors, I recognise the part he played. Funny you completely omit the part he played in deceiving the trust&cutting them out of any potential deal though.
-by the two buyers do you mean Noell?why is that something the trust should be grateful to Huw for? They didn't buy anyone's shares let alone the trust's and were found out to be chancers?
-your 5% theory has been spoilt by the American owners. Maybe that arrangement could have been discussed at mediation&discussions around the offer made? And then detracted and mediation declined. Oh dear.
-not sure why you think the trust would care or need the business community? I think the exact opposite anyway. Most level headed impartial observers will see that the trust were wronged& showed great determination&integrity while doing everything they could to avoid litigation.
-well a frustrated buyer walking away shows the trust did its job to me. Shows they've got the interests of the club at heart. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 23:51 - Sep 22 with 1013 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:13 - Sep 22 by Garyjack |
You're a real crackpot aren't you! You're basing these figures of yours on the basis that the trust was equally involved in the share sale in the way the 'sell outs' were. That is clearly not the case is it, and proven by the fact that the Yanks insisted that the 'sell outs' give up their voting rights so that they had a 75%+ shareholding, which effectively meant that they could dilute the trust shares at anytime.
But hey! Let's go with your fantasy notion that this did actually happen. What would you suggest the trust did with this £15m of yours? Because reading between the lines it's kind of obvious that you believe that while the 'sell outs' walked away with their millions, the trust should be left with plugging the financial blackhole that they left behind and was not of their making!
Of course, your second paragraph is nothing more than word salad.
"A word salad, or schizophasia, is a "confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases", most often used to describe a symptom of a neurological or mental disorder." |
Its a forum and place for debate. I think you are unable to think for yourself and feel comfortable in a crowd. That is fine. You use the word "Yanks" and persional insults which tells me your are not up for 'grown up' debate.
There is a simple rule in life. If you want to sell something you have to put yourself up for sale or at least tell people you want to sell. The Trust chairman at the time said "We will never sell" after the collapse of the 2015 talks. This was equivalent of not handing in the winning £20m lottery ticket. The other owners thought great. An extremely dim position to take. Two attempts were made to move them to no avail. When relegation happened they realised it was a good idea after all. You could not make it up.
Cash is what counts not voting rights which are irrelevant. The Trust's judgement is so poor that no other investors want them making important club decisions. As a fan I certainly do not. You are speculating the US people demanded it. I suggest to you it was an agreed decision and the Trust leadership were seen as unable to make sensible club decisions. Dilution of the Trust is the best thing that can happen for the club. The club made a very bad shout in 2002 naiively giving the fans a place on the board and 20% . I suspect all the other owners regret this decison as it been run by social activists and East stand showboaters.
The Trust had they sold would put at least £10m into managed funds just like my pension. Managed funds such as pensions see an annual targeted returns of around 5%. That would give a return of £500,000 per year. Are you still following or have I lost you? This could be re invested into the club if required needing the US and other Welsh shareholders needing to find £9.5m to stop themselves being diluted. Money has no nationality.
What is the 'back hole' you are talking about again showing your financial naiivety . The problem is the deficit which is getting greater every season as the parachute drops. This was being managed without external money until Covid struck. Thank god for the American owners and Slverstein. Without their cash I suspect the club goes bankrupt. They did not want to invest but had no choice at the same time preserving the remaining value of the Trusts shares. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 01:24 - Sep 23 with 1002 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 23:51 - Sep 22 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Its a forum and place for debate. I think you are unable to think for yourself and feel comfortable in a crowd. That is fine. You use the word "Yanks" and persional insults which tells me your are not up for 'grown up' debate.
There is a simple rule in life. If you want to sell something you have to put yourself up for sale or at least tell people you want to sell. The Trust chairman at the time said "We will never sell" after the collapse of the 2015 talks. This was equivalent of not handing in the winning £20m lottery ticket. The other owners thought great. An extremely dim position to take. Two attempts were made to move them to no avail. When relegation happened they realised it was a good idea after all. You could not make it up.
Cash is what counts not voting rights which are irrelevant. The Trust's judgement is so poor that no other investors want them making important club decisions. As a fan I certainly do not. You are speculating the US people demanded it. I suggest to you it was an agreed decision and the Trust leadership were seen as unable to make sensible club decisions. Dilution of the Trust is the best thing that can happen for the club. The club made a very bad shout in 2002 naiively giving the fans a place on the board and 20% . I suspect all the other owners regret this decison as it been run by social activists and East stand showboaters.
The Trust had they sold would put at least £10m into managed funds just like my pension. Managed funds such as pensions see an annual targeted returns of around 5%. That would give a return of £500,000 per year. Are you still following or have I lost you? This could be re invested into the club if required needing the US and other Welsh shareholders needing to find £9.5m to stop themselves being diluted. Money has no nationality.
What is the 'back hole' you are talking about again showing your financial naiivety . The problem is the deficit which is getting greater every season as the parachute drops. This was being managed without external money until Covid struck. Thank god for the American owners and Slverstein. Without their cash I suspect the club goes bankrupt. They did not want to invest but had no choice at the same time preserving the remaining value of the Trusts shares. |
Look mate, I'm trying to debate with you tidily but come on try and be at least a bit balanced. You complete one sidedness against the trust&your failure to not condemn the actions of the sellers / buyers one bit is making you lose credibility.
For example how the hell could it have been a bad a shout for the club to 'let' (they paid their way) have a stake in 2002? The club went onto have its most successful period ever and we've never looked liked reaching anywhere like those depths since!
Have some perspective and think before you post mun. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 10:01 - Sep 23 with 957 views | swancity |
What’s the latest Trust news / standpoint / update regarding the legal action ?
Anyone know? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 10:06 - Sep 23 with 953 views | chad |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 10:01 - Sep 23 by swancity |
What’s the latest Trust news / standpoint / update regarding the legal action ?
Anyone know? |
Sent yesterday as part of a much larger general update
Legal Update
In our previous update we noted that we have two sets of activities to conclude before we can implement the mandate from our members to pursue legal action in relation to the 2016 sale of the club. Firstly, we need to conclude activities with our QC to finalise the documentation required to commence legal action. Secondly, we then need to finalise financial agreements so that the Trust can proceed with legal action in a manner that protects the Trust and the interests of our members.
We are happy to state that we expect the first of those two activities to be completed within the next week. Once complete, our legal advisors will then be fully engaged with various partners to obtain the requisite funding, which we anticipate will take several weeks to complete due to the complex nature of this undertaking. We will continue to provide regular updates as we know this is a matter that is important to many of our members. |  | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 11:11 - Sep 23 with 941 views | swancity |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 10:06 - Sep 23 by chad |
Sent yesterday as part of a much larger general update
Legal Update
In our previous update we noted that we have two sets of activities to conclude before we can implement the mandate from our members to pursue legal action in relation to the 2016 sale of the club. Firstly, we need to conclude activities with our QC to finalise the documentation required to commence legal action. Secondly, we then need to finalise financial agreements so that the Trust can proceed with legal action in a manner that protects the Trust and the interests of our members.
We are happy to state that we expect the first of those two activities to be completed within the next week. Once complete, our legal advisors will then be fully engaged with various partners to obtain the requisite funding, which we anticipate will take several weeks to complete due to the complex nature of this undertaking. We will continue to provide regular updates as we know this is a matter that is important to many of our members. |
Good stuff, thanks
Pleasing to note progress being made
The truth will prevail which should help everyone then move forward | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:01 - Sep 23 with 919 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 11:11 - Sep 23 by swancity |
Good stuff, thanks
Pleasing to note progress being made
The truth will prevail which should help everyone then move forward |
So still no funding available. The funders will determine if the Trust have a strong enough case. I am dubious.
How is holding zero shares in Swansea city in the member's interest?
How is giving millions to London legal firms fullfilling the objectives of a 'not for profit' organisation.?
Who will enter talks with the Trust in the future if they have a track record of litigation against its private investor partners. ?
Is the Trust 100% sure no tax is payable?
What will the Trust do outside the club to offset the effects of inflation and declining member interest? Who can predict the inflation. The HM Government target is 3%. A £10m pot affected by 3% inflation will reduce the Trust real value to £8.6m in 5 years and £7.4m in 10 years. They will have no choice but to enter the financial markets in effect becoming a financial rather than football organisation. Is that what members want.?
Can the Trust continue to exist as a Supporters Trust long term with no shares.?
Progress is a settlement and and independent assessment and determination of a sesnible future strategy. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:41 - Sep 23 with 884 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:01 - Sep 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
So still no funding available. The funders will determine if the Trust have a strong enough case. I am dubious.
How is holding zero shares in Swansea city in the member's interest?
How is giving millions to London legal firms fullfilling the objectives of a 'not for profit' organisation.?
Who will enter talks with the Trust in the future if they have a track record of litigation against its private investor partners. ?
Is the Trust 100% sure no tax is payable?
What will the Trust do outside the club to offset the effects of inflation and declining member interest? Who can predict the inflation. The HM Government target is 3%. A £10m pot affected by 3% inflation will reduce the Trust real value to £8.6m in 5 years and £7.4m in 10 years. They will have no choice but to enter the financial markets in effect becoming a financial rather than football organisation. Is that what members want.?
Can the Trust continue to exist as a Supporters Trust long term with no shares.?
Progress is a settlement and and independent assessment and determination of a sesnible future strategy. |
-you've been saying throughout this thread either that the trust not have had any shares or got rid of them - now you're implying getting rid of isn't the correct course of action.
-has it ever been stated that they are not for profit? Do you think it feasible that they'd run at a loss?
-don't be silly about future talks. People still do business with Cardiff&they don't pay their transfer fees. Again you completely ignore the trust were wronged&are perfectly entitled to take these steps. Anyone with half a brain will see that in future when looking at talking.
-numerous clubs have supporters trusts that aren't shareholders.
-your last comment is literally what the trust tried to do at great and at great time consumption! but as you but mysteriously refuse to acknowledge, the requests were either ignored and offers to engage were rescinded by the American owners.
I can't talk about the financial what if paragraph but it may valid to know what exactly will be done with the money in the every of a trust win. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:10 - Sep 23 with 876 views | chad |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:01 - Sep 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
So still no funding available. The funders will determine if the Trust have a strong enough case. I am dubious.
How is holding zero shares in Swansea city in the member's interest?
How is giving millions to London legal firms fullfilling the objectives of a 'not for profit' organisation.?
Who will enter talks with the Trust in the future if they have a track record of litigation against its private investor partners. ?
Is the Trust 100% sure no tax is payable?
What will the Trust do outside the club to offset the effects of inflation and declining member interest? Who can predict the inflation. The HM Government target is 3%. A £10m pot affected by 3% inflation will reduce the Trust real value to £8.6m in 5 years and £7.4m in 10 years. They will have no choice but to enter the financial markets in effect becoming a financial rather than football organisation. Is that what members want.?
Can the Trust continue to exist as a Supporters Trust long term with no shares.?
Progress is a settlement and and independent assessment and determination of a sesnible future strategy. |
‘Progress is a settlement and and independent assessment and determination of a sesnible future strategy’
In the words of Professor Terry Rapson of the Hedland Climate Research Centre:
‘I’m afraid that time has come and gone, my friend’ | | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:16 - Sep 23 with 872 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:01 - Sep 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
So still no funding available. The funders will determine if the Trust have a strong enough case. I am dubious.
How is holding zero shares in Swansea city in the member's interest?
How is giving millions to London legal firms fullfilling the objectives of a 'not for profit' organisation.?
Who will enter talks with the Trust in the future if they have a track record of litigation against its private investor partners. ?
Is the Trust 100% sure no tax is payable?
What will the Trust do outside the club to offset the effects of inflation and declining member interest? Who can predict the inflation. The HM Government target is 3%. A £10m pot affected by 3% inflation will reduce the Trust real value to £8.6m in 5 years and £7.4m in 10 years. They will have no choice but to enter the financial markets in effect becoming a financial rather than football organisation. Is that what members want.?
Can the Trust continue to exist as a Supporters Trust long term with no shares.?
Progress is a settlement and and independent assessment and determination of a sesnible future strategy. |
“Progress is a settlement”
The majority owners are not interested in getting around a table with the Trust and continue to treat a 21% shareholder with contempt so a settlement is not possible. They clearly think they have a watertight case. |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:34 - Sep 23 with 868 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:41 - Sep 23 by Chief |
-you've been saying throughout this thread either that the trust not have had any shares or got rid of them - now you're implying getting rid of isn't the correct course of action.
-has it ever been stated that they are not for profit? Do you think it feasible that they'd run at a loss?
-don't be silly about future talks. People still do business with Cardiff&they don't pay their transfer fees. Again you completely ignore the trust were wronged&are perfectly entitled to take these steps. Anyone with half a brain will see that in future when looking at talking.
-numerous clubs have supporters trusts that aren't shareholders.
-your last comment is literally what the trust tried to do at great and at great time consumption! but as you but mysteriously refuse to acknowledge, the requests were either ignored and offers to engage were rescinded by the American owners.
I can't talk about the financial what if paragraph but it may valid to know what exactly will be done with the money in the every of a trust win. |
I have consistently said the Trusts ideal holding is 5%. This is understood to be the lowest shareholding that comes with a director on the board.
The Trust has shown no expertise in handling cash and do not have seem to have throught about their post sale future. Local people have long memories and I have no doubt they would give the Trust wide berth in the future. Trust members deeply resent any profits gained by the former owners after all.
Legal action has been in the offing for 2-3 years and still no funding. It is likely to be very vey expensive.
Your last point is instructive. You support legal action to remove money form investors in the football club but have no idea what to do with any money in the event of a win. The funders will take 40%+ of it and know exactly what to do with it. London bonuses for one. Built by the Welsh over decades and profited from by the English home counties for doing very little. Been there before. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:51 - Sep 23 with 861 views | chad |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:34 - Sep 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I have consistently said the Trusts ideal holding is 5%. This is understood to be the lowest shareholding that comes with a director on the board.
The Trust has shown no expertise in handling cash and do not have seem to have throught about their post sale future. Local people have long memories and I have no doubt they would give the Trust wide berth in the future. Trust members deeply resent any profits gained by the former owners after all.
Legal action has been in the offing for 2-3 years and still no funding. It is likely to be very vey expensive.
Your last point is instructive. You support legal action to remove money form investors in the football club but have no idea what to do with any money in the event of a win. The funders will take 40%+ of it and know exactly what to do with it. London bonuses for one. Built by the Welsh over decades and profited from by the English home counties for doing very little. Been there before. |
Shame they lied and cheated then, plus continued to ignore us and walk all over us, then unilaterally pulled out of the massively advantageous deal we gifted them.
Their choice not to fairly settle. In the most likely event of us winning our strong legal case, they will almost certainly saddle themselves with our expenses, given their behaviour
Interested in your figures though perhaps you could provide evidence. I will not hold my breath given you still don’t seem to understand a loan is debt to the club, as it always has been when we took them out in the past. Also if people actually wanted to buy into the club, rather than make a loan, then that could be done right now, no need for loans. So far from as committed as you seem to imply. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.