| When Huw Jenkins talked about 10:41 - Sep 20 with 7223 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 18:58 - Sep 23 with 1360 views | Chief |
| 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. |
Oh come on you think local people with long memories are going to look unfavorably on the lovsl football teams pursuit of justice after being screwed by the hedgefund Americans!?
The next bit is disingenuous - if they sellouts had done the right&moral thing, their payout wouldn't be frowned upon at all.
Yes don't think anyone is under any illusions as to the costs, that's obviously why it's imperative for the process to be seen through properly&thoroughly&accounts for the time lag.
My point was instructive to me being balanced(give it a try) showing I'm aware this may not be plain sailing. Who knows what deal is worked out by the funders&whether they are English.
The obvious high level aim is to have a decent watches for the future. There's probably numerous options of how this money could be held in the meantime. No point me speculating on that. |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 23:35 - Sep 23 with 1332 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:58 - Sep 23 by Chief |
Oh come on you think local people with long memories are going to look unfavorably on the lovsl football teams pursuit of justice after being screwed by the hedgefund Americans!?
The next bit is disingenuous - if they sellouts had done the right&moral thing, their payout wouldn't be frowned upon at all.
Yes don't think anyone is under any illusions as to the costs, that's obviously why it's imperative for the process to be seen through properly&thoroughly&accounts for the time lag.
My point was instructive to me being balanced(give it a try) showing I'm aware this may not be plain sailing. Who knows what deal is worked out by the funders&whether they are English.
The obvious high level aim is to have a decent watches for the future. There's probably numerous options of how this money could be held in the meantime. No point me speculating on that. |
Levien is not in the hedgefund business at all as far as i know Kaplan had a very sucessfull firm buying leveraged distressed companies sorting out their debts and recoveing the firms where possible. His firm had investment arm which could be hedgefund related but all perfectly legal and morally sound. You are using the old trick of using the 'hegdefund' word to indicate lax corporate values following some controversies in the 1980s and 1990s. Enough to fool the average Dai but not me. Kaplan and Levien are not asset strippers but builders of busnesses. Hedgefund is simply a method of investment for highly risky assests like football clubs and not covered by the FCA in the UK for example.
The fact is the Trust cannot afford their legal action and therefore have to pass on the risk of failure onto their funders who are obviously uncomfortable with this. The higher the chance off failure in court the higher the cost of success. A successful court case for the Trust is bad news for Swansea as I see it and good news for Surrey and could conceivably cost Swansea jobs. Jobs that are not your job or jobs of members that voted for legal action.
The Trust with their failure to put themselves up for sale and oft repeated statement indiating the reluctance to selling their shares at the top of the market indicated a low level of shrewdness and a high level of naiivity. Easy meat for the outraguous demands of their funders I would imagine.
The Trust influencers have a stanglehold on the Swansea city online forum scene with SCFC2, Planetswans and probably now this outlet and to an extent have written their own history. This will not wash in court or with the funders. I have determined my own persepective and am gratefull to this outlet to present an alternative narrative. I hope the funders decide the risk is too high for them to take on. |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 07:15 - Sep 24 with 1304 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 23:35 - Sep 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Levien is not in the hedgefund business at all as far as i know Kaplan had a very sucessfull firm buying leveraged distressed companies sorting out their debts and recoveing the firms where possible. His firm had investment arm which could be hedgefund related but all perfectly legal and morally sound. You are using the old trick of using the 'hegdefund' word to indicate lax corporate values following some controversies in the 1980s and 1990s. Enough to fool the average Dai but not me. Kaplan and Levien are not asset strippers but builders of busnesses. Hedgefund is simply a method of investment for highly risky assests like football clubs and not covered by the FCA in the UK for example.
The fact is the Trust cannot afford their legal action and therefore have to pass on the risk of failure onto their funders who are obviously uncomfortable with this. The higher the chance off failure in court the higher the cost of success. A successful court case for the Trust is bad news for Swansea as I see it and good news for Surrey and could conceivably cost Swansea jobs. Jobs that are not your job or jobs of members that voted for legal action.
The Trust with their failure to put themselves up for sale and oft repeated statement indiating the reluctance to selling their shares at the top of the market indicated a low level of shrewdness and a high level of naiivity. Easy meat for the outraguous demands of their funders I would imagine.
The Trust influencers have a stanglehold on the Swansea city online forum scene with SCFC2, Planetswans and probably now this outlet and to an extent have written their own history. This will not wash in court or with the funders. I have determined my own persepective and am gratefull to this outlet to present an alternative narrative. I hope the funders decide the risk is too high for them to take on. |
-the word hedgefund applies to the American consortium as a whole fine.
-how do you know the trust can't afford it? Maybe finding 'funders' is a wise strategy to alleviate risk?
-don't understand your job risk bit-that's flat out tenuous scaremongering.
-why would the trust have needed to put themselves up for sale? Again you're forgetting how we've ended up here.
-how do you know they have outrageous demands?
-yes I also very much doubt the funders will look or care about what is written internet forums either. Theyll look at the strength of the case.
Again, one hell of a lot of domesday scenario outlandish claims in your posts. Very much clutching at straws. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 12:46 - Sep 24 with 1270 views | BillyChong |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 23:35 - Sep 23 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Levien is not in the hedgefund business at all as far as i know Kaplan had a very sucessfull firm buying leveraged distressed companies sorting out their debts and recoveing the firms where possible. His firm had investment arm which could be hedgefund related but all perfectly legal and morally sound. You are using the old trick of using the 'hegdefund' word to indicate lax corporate values following some controversies in the 1980s and 1990s. Enough to fool the average Dai but not me. Kaplan and Levien are not asset strippers but builders of busnesses. Hedgefund is simply a method of investment for highly risky assests like football clubs and not covered by the FCA in the UK for example.
The fact is the Trust cannot afford their legal action and therefore have to pass on the risk of failure onto their funders who are obviously uncomfortable with this. The higher the chance off failure in court the higher the cost of success. A successful court case for the Trust is bad news for Swansea as I see it and good news for Surrey and could conceivably cost Swansea jobs. Jobs that are not your job or jobs of members that voted for legal action.
The Trust with their failure to put themselves up for sale and oft repeated statement indiating the reluctance to selling their shares at the top of the market indicated a low level of shrewdness and a high level of naiivity. Easy meat for the outraguous demands of their funders I would imagine.
The Trust influencers have a stanglehold on the Swansea city online forum scene with SCFC2, Planetswans and probably now this outlet and to an extent have written their own history. This will not wash in court or with the funders. I have determined my own persepective and am gratefull to this outlet to present an alternative narrative. I hope the funders decide the risk is too high for them to take on. |
To be fair, the trust weren’t naive enough to sign that waiver concerning the shareholders agreement. Jenkins however was crooked enough to claim it never existed. | | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:31 - Sep 24 with 1263 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 12:46 - Sep 24 by BillyChong |
To be fair, the trust weren’t naive enough to sign that waiver concerning the shareholders agreement. Jenkins however was crooked enough to claim it never existed. |
This is a matter for the legal minds. I doubt many fans have even seen or read the document never mind comment on its significance. Again I hope no jobs are lost as a result of this legal dispute which clearly could have been avoided. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 14:42 - Sep 24 with 1250 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:31 - Sep 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is a matter for the legal minds. I doubt many fans have even seen or read the document never mind comment on its significance. Again I hope no jobs are lost as a result of this legal dispute which clearly could have been avoided. |
It could have been avoided at a number of juncture, from the initial collusion of deceit to ignoring of mediation offers to retraction of settlement offers.
But here we are. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 16:34 - Sep 24 with 1232 views | waynekerr55 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:31 - Sep 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
This is a matter for the legal minds. I doubt many fans have even seen or read the document never mind comment on its significance. Again I hope no jobs are lost as a result of this legal dispute which clearly could have been avoided. |
What jobs will be lost? |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:49 - Sep 24 with 1209 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 16:34 - Sep 24 by waynekerr55 |
What jobs will be lost? |
Surely you were aware when you voted for legal action there would be consequences for the club and its workers?
https://www.manchestereveningn [Post edited 24 Sep 2020 17:50]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:53 - Sep 24 with 1202 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:49 - Sep 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Surely you were aware when you voted for legal action there would be consequences for the club and its workers?
https://www.manchestereveningn [Post edited 24 Sep 2020 17:50]
|
Are you implying the American owners are going to put is into administration if they buy the trust's shares? | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:55 - Sep 24 with 1200 views | waynekerr55 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:49 - Sep 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Surely you were aware when you voted for legal action there would be consequences for the club and its workers?
https://www.manchestereveningn [Post edited 24 Sep 2020 17:50]
|
The action relates to the owners past and present and their actions, if I'm not mistaken. So that would mean no money out of the club per se. I'm by no means a legal eagle though. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:07 - Sep 24 with 1194 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:55 - Sep 24 by waynekerr55 |
The action relates to the owners past and present and their actions, if I'm not mistaken. So that would mean no money out of the club per se. I'm by no means a legal eagle though. |
Yes he's deliberately conflating the club's accounts with the the American shareholder's personal fortunes from which they'd have to pay for the shares. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:49 - Sep 24 with 1174 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:07 - Sep 24 by Chief |
Yes he's deliberately conflating the club's accounts with the the American shareholder's personal fortunes from which they'd have to pay for the shares. |
Try this for argument . It is all hypothetical of course but I think like the owners think not how the fans think.
Via the club the US people get a bill for say £15m to be paid within a limited time peroid. By this time they will own the club 100% with the other debtors and can do whatever they want.
They would simply face time with Mr Winters and instruct him to generate £15m for payment to them within that time period by shrinking the the staff to the bone and selling players of value at a discounted value to ensure the highest front loaded fees. They will do this to not antagonise the 28 other US investors. Winter has worked for Notts county and knows what he needs to do. They might actually do this before the court decision to build up a cash pile to avoid other cubs taking advantge.
The situation I would guess would be similar to that at Wigan without being in adminstration.
Naturally this will denegrate the club and add even more grief. If I was them I would increase the season tickets prices by £1.5m per annum to recover the lost £15m over 10 years post Covid a roughly 20% increase one off increase. One option would to be to give discounts to u25 and extra costs to over 25s. The fans took £15m from them in legal action and will be required to give it back over time. There may be cheaper football down the road if fans prefer. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:08 - Sep 24 with 1166 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:49 - Sep 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Try this for argument . It is all hypothetical of course but I think like the owners think not how the fans think.
Via the club the US people get a bill for say £15m to be paid within a limited time peroid. By this time they will own the club 100% with the other debtors and can do whatever they want.
They would simply face time with Mr Winters and instruct him to generate £15m for payment to them within that time period by shrinking the the staff to the bone and selling players of value at a discounted value to ensure the highest front loaded fees. They will do this to not antagonise the 28 other US investors. Winter has worked for Notts county and knows what he needs to do. They might actually do this before the court decision to build up a cash pile to avoid other cubs taking advantge.
The situation I would guess would be similar to that at Wigan without being in adminstration.
Naturally this will denegrate the club and add even more grief. If I was them I would increase the season tickets prices by £1.5m per annum to recover the lost £15m over 10 years post Covid a roughly 20% increase one off increase. One option would to be to give discounts to u25 and extra costs to over 25s. The fans took £15m from them in legal action and will be required to give it back over time. There may be cheaper football down the road if fans prefer. |
-The bill wouldn't go via the club.
-So you're saying that the American owners would (illegally&against FA rules) siphon off the football club's funds to pay their own personal debts?
-Well if the Americans want to run the club into the ground and fulfill the fears of many there'll be no one to blame but themselves.
If they are the savvy aware business that you seem to think they are, they should have always realised the pitfalls of colluding with Huw&co & should also have realised that having to purchase the trust's shares was always a possibility. They are meant to be experienced operators in this field. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:25 - Sep 24 with 1162 views | Garyjack |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:49 - Sep 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Try this for argument . It is all hypothetical of course but I think like the owners think not how the fans think.
Via the club the US people get a bill for say £15m to be paid within a limited time peroid. By this time they will own the club 100% with the other debtors and can do whatever they want.
They would simply face time with Mr Winters and instruct him to generate £15m for payment to them within that time period by shrinking the the staff to the bone and selling players of value at a discounted value to ensure the highest front loaded fees. They will do this to not antagonise the 28 other US investors. Winter has worked for Notts county and knows what he needs to do. They might actually do this before the court decision to build up a cash pile to avoid other cubs taking advantge.
The situation I would guess would be similar to that at Wigan without being in adminstration.
Naturally this will denegrate the club and add even more grief. If I was them I would increase the season tickets prices by £1.5m per annum to recover the lost £15m over 10 years post Covid a roughly 20% increase one off increase. One option would to be to give discounts to u25 and extra costs to over 25s. The fans took £15m from them in legal action and will be required to give it back over time. There may be cheaper football down the road if fans prefer. |
See. I've told you in various threads that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but did you listen? No. And this is what we end up with!  |  | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:32 - Sep 24 with 1147 views | waynekerr55 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:08 - Sep 24 by Chief |
-The bill wouldn't go via the club.
-So you're saying that the American owners would (illegally&against FA rules) siphon off the football club's funds to pay their own personal debts?
-Well if the Americans want to run the club into the ground and fulfill the fears of many there'll be no one to blame but themselves.
If they are the savvy aware business that you seem to think they are, they should have always realised the pitfalls of colluding with Huw&co & should also have realised that having to purchase the trust's shares was always a possibility. They are meant to be experienced operators in this field. |
I can't believe how they fell hook, line and sinker and bought us to be honest. Our operating losses were staggering, especially as Huw was at his 'best' real life Championship Manager mode at the time we were sold. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:37 - Sep 24 with 1102 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:08 - Sep 24 by Chief |
-The bill wouldn't go via the club.
-So you're saying that the American owners would (illegally&against FA rules) siphon off the football club's funds to pay their own personal debts?
-Well if the Americans want to run the club into the ground and fulfill the fears of many there'll be no one to blame but themselves.
If they are the savvy aware business that you seem to think they are, they should have always realised the pitfalls of colluding with Huw&co & should also have realised that having to purchase the trust's shares was always a possibility. They are meant to be experienced operators in this field. |
The owners have an asset called Swansea city they and others debtors now own 100%. The bill comes into The Americans. This is an asset they injected signifcant funds into.
The Americans own Swansea city and tell Mr Winter to do what ever necessary to cover this loss but making significant cuts to the playing and other staff and selling player assets. This will be paid to the US fund by means of a special dividend or return of loans they have already made to the club. Nothing illegal about it. In the long term the season ticket holders will have to pay extra. This is straight forward business logic.
Its to be hoped the funders will not take the risk and the Trust legal challenge will be over. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 08:46 - Sep 25 with 1055 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:37 - Sep 24 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The owners have an asset called Swansea city they and others debtors now own 100%. The bill comes into The Americans. This is an asset they injected signifcant funds into.
The Americans own Swansea city and tell Mr Winter to do what ever necessary to cover this loss but making significant cuts to the playing and other staff and selling player assets. This will be paid to the US fund by means of a special dividend or return of loans they have already made to the club. Nothing illegal about it. In the long term the season ticket holders will have to pay extra. This is straight forward business logic.
Its to be hoped the funders will not take the risk and the Trust legal challenge will be over. |
-Injected significant funds into (bought all the shares of). and it won't quite be 100% coz of other small shareholders.
-so you are saying that the Americans will siphon off funds for their own personal accounts illegally then? And you're saying taking a dividend of around £20million out of a club that isn't making £20million isn't illegal? Similarly that's a lot of interest to slam onto loans put into the club to recoup that! That's going to difficult to hide in the accounts.
-ok well we'll see about the season tickets that maybe the case anyway due to Covid.
I think you really need to think these scaremongering theories through again. They are getting increasingly desperate and outlandish. The one you've described there, not even the most ardent opposers of the American owners would think they'd act like that. Your doing your case no good at all! | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 08:56 - Sep 25 with 1052 views | Chief |
So essentially then the Americans if they lose their case for knowingly deceiving trust (they knew what they were getting into&the potential consequences) and are legally ordered to pay - they are tyrannical enough to reimburse their own coffers from Swansea City football club accounts?
Yet you are an advocate for these people | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 14:22 - Sep 25 with 1024 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 08:56 - Sep 25 by Chief |
So essentially then the Americans if they lose their case for knowingly deceiving trust (they knew what they were getting into&the potential consequences) and are legally ordered to pay - they are tyrannical enough to reimburse their own coffers from Swansea City football club accounts?
Yet you are an advocate for these people |
I support Swansea city and whether you like or not the US people and their associates are supporting Swansea city through this period of crisis. The Trust under is previous leadership made no serious effort to sell any of their shares and subsequently are unable to contribute to the emergency funding. It appears they would rather force a sale and get out than contribute any money to the club.
I am of the firm belief that if the Trust wanted to sell they would have. You do not sell anything waiting for the phone to ring if you have not advertised your assets are for sale. They were coasting living the dolce vita with a deck chair in the VIP suite.
It is not known if the other Welsh shareholders have made a contribution to the emergency loan.
If the US owners get an haircut from the ownership of the Welsh part of their portfolio and from the Welsh fans themselves the motivation to let the fans pay for the losses will be emotionally overwhelming. This is what I would do if I was them.
The fan's Trust never had to contribute anything in the Jenkins years as their asset value increased x100 and they still insult the great man. I see this as low class behaviour and perhaps when all the facts are laid out so will the court adjudicators. I suspect a win in court does not necessarily mean a big award.
During the same period with similar histories Stoke and Middlesborough have burdened their owners with massive debts in excess of £100m in Stoke's case. The Middlesborough owner Steve Gibson is hailed as the model owner by fans. You bet he is as he and his company are nursing huge debts.
This is all hypothetical debate and I thank you for engaging in debate without personal slurs. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 15:16 - Sep 25 with 1017 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 14:22 - Sep 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I support Swansea city and whether you like or not the US people and their associates are supporting Swansea city through this period of crisis. The Trust under is previous leadership made no serious effort to sell any of their shares and subsequently are unable to contribute to the emergency funding. It appears they would rather force a sale and get out than contribute any money to the club.
I am of the firm belief that if the Trust wanted to sell they would have. You do not sell anything waiting for the phone to ring if you have not advertised your assets are for sale. They were coasting living the dolce vita with a deck chair in the VIP suite.
It is not known if the other Welsh shareholders have made a contribution to the emergency loan.
If the US owners get an haircut from the ownership of the Welsh part of their portfolio and from the Welsh fans themselves the motivation to let the fans pay for the losses will be emotionally overwhelming. This is what I would do if I was them.
The fan's Trust never had to contribute anything in the Jenkins years as their asset value increased x100 and they still insult the great man. I see this as low class behaviour and perhaps when all the facts are laid out so will the court adjudicators. I suspect a win in court does not necessarily mean a big award.
During the same period with similar histories Stoke and Middlesborough have burdened their owners with massive debts in excess of £100m in Stoke's case. The Middlesborough owner Steve Gibson is hailed as the model owner by fans. You bet he is as he and his company are nursing huge debts.
This is all hypothetical debate and I thank you for engaging in debate without personal slurs. |
Ive addressed&discounted most of these points previously but you are still failing to grasp that supporters trusts do not exist to act as football club's personal investment arms.
Calling Huw Jenkins a great man after he is one of the main instigators of this whole affair is downright provocative. He failed to fulfill his moral and probably legal duty during the sale, yet you refuse to criticize him at all. He did excellent for the club but he's unfortunately sullied his reputation.
You also forget Huw never contributed financially either - another fact you ignore.
Care to address my two previous posts instead of repeating these things? | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 16:22 - Sep 25 with 999 views | swancity |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 15:16 - Sep 25 by Chief |
Ive addressed&discounted most of these points previously but you are still failing to grasp that supporters trusts do not exist to act as football club's personal investment arms.
Calling Huw Jenkins a great man after he is one of the main instigators of this whole affair is downright provocative. He failed to fulfill his moral and probably legal duty during the sale, yet you refuse to criticize him at all. He did excellent for the club but he's unfortunately sullied his reputation.
You also forget Huw never contributed financially either - another fact you ignore.
Care to address my two previous posts instead of repeating these things? |
Agreed as that cannot be disputed
And in doing so shat on friends, fellow fans, associates and acquaintances in the process of completing the sale.
Of course others like Dineen and Morgan etc were also involved and they need to accept responsibility too.
It stinks. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:24 - Sep 25 with 989 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 15:16 - Sep 25 by Chief |
Ive addressed&discounted most of these points previously but you are still failing to grasp that supporters trusts do not exist to act as football club's personal investment arms.
Calling Huw Jenkins a great man after he is one of the main instigators of this whole affair is downright provocative. He failed to fulfill his moral and probably legal duty during the sale, yet you refuse to criticize him at all. He did excellent for the club but he's unfortunately sullied his reputation.
You also forget Huw never contributed financially either - another fact you ignore.
Care to address my two previous posts instead of repeating these things? |
Without doubt Huw Jenkins is the club's greatest ever Chairman. Not perfect but holistically he has been a huge benefit to the club, city and the upto 400 staff that were employed at the club over the years. History will treat him well for sure but will not be so kind on the SCST if they go to court. It is a lose lose for them. The example of Exeter city is the best they can achieve. The US owners sold McBurnie for £20m. Exeter sold Watkins for less than £2m as well as Ampadu and Grimes for pennies.
HJ is loathed by some Trust members perhaps, but I see the members (on the whole not all) as people of poor judgement, excessively trusting of their leadership, easily led and with parochial tendencies. A group so financially illiterate they failed to press their leadership to put any of their holding up for sale while sitting on a x100 return. This may seem disrespectfull but they are members of a multimillion pound organisation not a branch of the Womens Institute who I would not criticise. What on earth did they discuss in meetings.? Procedures, protocols, rules, regulations absentee notifications and where should the Trust director sit on matchday?
Had it been their own money you can be sure they would have forced their management team to sell. (The good sense of the household partner who really wears the trousers, would have guarenteed that). It is well known that the customer is always right and fans generally escape criticism. What is diiferent here is the fan is also the owner and my perception is that, responsibility appears sits uncomfortably on their shoulders and they are uncomfortable with decision making.
Mr Jenkins ran the club so well that no owner had to contribute anything to the complete transformation from car crash to state of the art. The Trust who owned 21% of nothing now own 21% of a glistening club with state of the art facilities going a difficult period. They have lost nothing and have no cause for anger.
Regarding your previous post and your loaded questions.
The owners if punished by the fans body will certainly consider a Covid supplement plus a "Trust supplement" onto season ticket prices to cover legal costs. It is a natural human response. To avoid being accused of being unfair they might load older fans with increases while giving discounts to younger fans.
Would the owners syphon off funds illegally from the club to cover their losses? Of course not. They may of course if taken to court, ask Mr Winter to 'strenghten the balance sheet' by cutting local staff to the core, selling some, if not all, players of value and prepare for repaying of any debts to the shareholder very quickly. The debtors understandably might want cash in the short term togive to the Trust to avoid legal complications. The CEO might explain that the season ticket rises and second dose of 'hard medicine' is a result of uncertainties relating to the court case. Doing this in preparation will avoid other clubs offering speculative 'firesale' prices.
The owners in light of crippling short term debts will most probably seek to protect their associate investors from any inconvenience at the expense of the best interest of the club as a whole in the short term. This will be presented as a shareholder restructuring period where the club will be, in the long term, significantly more easily sold without minority shareholder activists who were percieved as being notoriously slow in making decsions and difficult to deal with.
These are my independant thoughts, all hypothetical of course and with a possible insight into how the Trust's co owners might look on the situation of being taken to court and losing. I hope the Swansea Independant really is a broad church. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:52 - Sep 25 with 958 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:24 - Sep 25 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Without doubt Huw Jenkins is the club's greatest ever Chairman. Not perfect but holistically he has been a huge benefit to the club, city and the upto 400 staff that were employed at the club over the years. History will treat him well for sure but will not be so kind on the SCST if they go to court. It is a lose lose for them. The example of Exeter city is the best they can achieve. The US owners sold McBurnie for £20m. Exeter sold Watkins for less than £2m as well as Ampadu and Grimes for pennies.
HJ is loathed by some Trust members perhaps, but I see the members (on the whole not all) as people of poor judgement, excessively trusting of their leadership, easily led and with parochial tendencies. A group so financially illiterate they failed to press their leadership to put any of their holding up for sale while sitting on a x100 return. This may seem disrespectfull but they are members of a multimillion pound organisation not a branch of the Womens Institute who I would not criticise. What on earth did they discuss in meetings.? Procedures, protocols, rules, regulations absentee notifications and where should the Trust director sit on matchday?
Had it been their own money you can be sure they would have forced their management team to sell. (The good sense of the household partner who really wears the trousers, would have guarenteed that). It is well known that the customer is always right and fans generally escape criticism. What is diiferent here is the fan is also the owner and my perception is that, responsibility appears sits uncomfortably on their shoulders and they are uncomfortable with decision making.
Mr Jenkins ran the club so well that no owner had to contribute anything to the complete transformation from car crash to state of the art. The Trust who owned 21% of nothing now own 21% of a glistening club with state of the art facilities going a difficult period. They have lost nothing and have no cause for anger.
Regarding your previous post and your loaded questions.
The owners if punished by the fans body will certainly consider a Covid supplement plus a "Trust supplement" onto season ticket prices to cover legal costs. It is a natural human response. To avoid being accused of being unfair they might load older fans with increases while giving discounts to younger fans.
Would the owners syphon off funds illegally from the club to cover their losses? Of course not. They may of course if taken to court, ask Mr Winter to 'strenghten the balance sheet' by cutting local staff to the core, selling some, if not all, players of value and prepare for repaying of any debts to the shareholder very quickly. The debtors understandably might want cash in the short term togive to the Trust to avoid legal complications. The CEO might explain that the season ticket rises and second dose of 'hard medicine' is a result of uncertainties relating to the court case. Doing this in preparation will avoid other clubs offering speculative 'firesale' prices.
The owners in light of crippling short term debts will most probably seek to protect their associate investors from any inconvenience at the expense of the best interest of the club as a whole in the short term. This will be presented as a shareholder restructuring period where the club will be, in the long term, significantly more easily sold without minority shareholder activists who were percieved as being notoriously slow in making decsions and difficult to deal with.
These are my independant thoughts, all hypothetical of course and with a possible insight into how the Trust's co owners might look on the situation of being taken to court and losing. I hope the Swansea Independant really is a broad church. |
-i've never disputed what Jenkins contributed. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticized when acting illegally&unethically.
-you'll have to elaborate on that Exeter comparison.
-you really do have a personal gripe with the trust don't you? Your lack of balance&seething language makes that obvious. Your mask has slipped.
-i don't understand that 3rd paragraph - who are you talking about in it?
-well Morgan did put in several loans during Jenkins time.
-so if Jenkins ran it so well that no one had to put money in (false, but humour me) are you saying that the Americans aren't running it as well seeing as theres an apparent need to put money in now?
-they were deprived of their legal right to have a cash offer for their shares. So yes they did. Furthermore, with more Americans on board there's the chance of dilution. There was never that prospect under the previous regime.
-not loaded at all-just clarifying your statements.
-no point speculating on the price increase as I've said previously there's it her variables at play there.
-so you are saying that these Americans (who should have foreseen the prospect that they may have to take on the shares-experienced men) will not illegally siphon of funds but asset strip instead?
Don't go off on tangents again about your personal issues with the trust. Try and stay balanced and just comment on mine above. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:13 - Sep 26 with 908 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:52 - Sep 25 by Chief |
-i've never disputed what Jenkins contributed. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticized when acting illegally&unethically.
-you'll have to elaborate on that Exeter comparison.
-you really do have a personal gripe with the trust don't you? Your lack of balance&seething language makes that obvious. Your mask has slipped.
-i don't understand that 3rd paragraph - who are you talking about in it?
-well Morgan did put in several loans during Jenkins time.
-so if Jenkins ran it so well that no one had to put money in (false, but humour me) are you saying that the Americans aren't running it as well seeing as theres an apparent need to put money in now?
-they were deprived of their legal right to have a cash offer for their shares. So yes they did. Furthermore, with more Americans on board there's the chance of dilution. There was never that prospect under the previous regime.
-not loaded at all-just clarifying your statements.
-no point speculating on the price increase as I've said previously there's it her variables at play there.
-so you are saying that these Americans (who should have foreseen the prospect that they may have to take on the shares-experienced men) will not illegally siphon of funds but asset strip instead?
Don't go off on tangents again about your personal issues with the trust. Try and stay balanced and just comment on mine above. |
The former chairman should certainly be criticized for his mistakes but overall his tenure was magnificent. Even his final act was heroic and in the best interest of the club and it shareholders as Dan James threw his expensive mobile phone on the the Thorpe Park marble floor and Jenkins fell on his sword. He came back to the best form he has ever shown to date. Ollie clearly needs to needle him a bit.
Exeter city Supporters Trust own their club and their members, and were a couple of seasons ago injecting £75,000 a season into the club. Each of their 3000 member pay an annual fee of around £25. Having low expectations and shallow pockets they have to sell their best players at rock bottom prices as they have no supporting Americans to give them a 'negiociating Yankee backbone'. Consequently Watkins, Ampadu and Grimes £70m of talent was sold for about £5m.
I have no mask, other than a N95, and am independent and think the Trust leadership has been very poor but they are the democratic choice of the members so the members are to blame. (the ones that voted and the many that could not be bothered to vote).
My third parargraph refers to what would have happened if the Trust members actually were simple shareholders. They would have forced their management to sell without a doubt. The lady at home has bills to pay if you consider the average members as a middle aged male.
The US owners have reportedly put in a "significant sum" with their associate to cover the Covid 19 crisis. Reportedly the US owners do not intend taking the money back instead intend buying newly issued shares as I understand it, which the Trust can also buy. They may delay this knowing the loan is recoverble in the short term in the event of legal action being instigated.
Dillution would be the choice of the Trust if they cannot fund buying new shares. They could ask the members to do what Exeter do and have a whip round. Dillution of the Trust is a good thing not a bad thing for the club as a whole. The Trust have managed their affairs such that they 2002-2016 they accumulated minimal cash and have a holding well beyond their means. Statements saying they were not keen on selling over the years are easily found online. This becomes evident today in a crisis where they are not able to help the club with Covid costs, stadium maintenance, academy costs players etc. The attitude from the good working class Welsh men and women is "The Yankees can pay all the bills". Shameful in my view. A shake up is needed by the new regime with those wonderful CVs.
Your comment about dillution shows your lack of understanding and complacency. There was no dillution under Jenkins because he did an extraordinary job generally foregoing dividends. He had to sell Scotland could not afford Gomez refused to give Martinez money, sold Allen, Sinclair, Shelvey to balance the books and pay off loans. Stoke were able to outbid Swansea for Joey Allen and stick the cost on the slate of their £100m + debts. He gets slagged off fo that as well.
All the evidence that I have seen is that the US owners are responsible owners of good companies that operate within the law. If however their Swansea portfolio causes them big legal losses and costs they will restructure the club to offset those losses. Any debts will need immediate repayment I would imagine as free cash. Winters will have to plug the gaps wto offset the loan money with land sales, job losses and players sales. These will all be attributed to the legal action.
If I was an owner which I am not ,the remaining losses to the remaining shareholders could be charged to the season ticket holders particularly those in the Swansea supporters Trust demographic 40-75 age group as a little gesture of love.
A targetted "Trust surcharge" of 20-25% on season tickets. This will generate an income of £2m per annum directly. The US people will have to extend their tenure 3-4 years to benefit from this.
Losses to the existing owners of £25m will be offset to the club in general and the fans in particular. They will do this because they can. The costs of giving millions to the London legal people and £10m or so to sit in a Trust zoombie fund will be caused by the fans and paid for by the club and fans in my opinion. They should not need to put the club into administrtion with the player assets at their disposal. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.