| When Huw Jenkins talked about 10:41 - Sep 20 with 7224 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 19:05 - Sep 26 with 1438 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:13 - Sep 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
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. |
-agreed on Huws last act of heroism. That act though shows how careful we have to be with the Americans. It would have been a terrible deal if allowed to go through. The fact that it didn't go through (and frankly didn't need to) means to me there's more than just a bit of boy that cried wolf about us needing to 'take hard medicine's.
-nice insight into Exeter but that's not really relevant to us, there's never been any prospect of a fully trust owned SCFC in its current guise. I'd suggest though that the fact Exeter are a and always have been a lower league club and that's why they sell 'cheaply'. Little to do with owners, just the going rate for league 2 players. This also goes against your first point too. Remember it was our American owners who negioted that awful James deal but Hue scuppered it.
-no point going into your fourth paragraph. That never has been the reality.
-well we do not know how much has been put in, for another summer we are up on transfer fees so so I wouldn't go too overboard on what's been lent.
-i don't think that's true about dilution is it? I'm no expert but if Silver doesn't take his loan back he gets a %. This results in other shareholders % reducing. Where does the prospect of anyone buying any further shares come in? Any more share issuing would need to be approved by the majority owner's who wouldn't do that for the trust anyway. That would defeat the object of them colluding to keep the trust's shares low in the first place.
-again you've slipped back into insulting language&of course forgotten that the trust is not or never has been an investment vehicle to fund the clubs overheads. The 'Yankees' paying all the bills is a figment of your imagination. The football club has its own accounts.
-Well the owners have admitted themselves that they didn't act lawfully when buying the club! You've also said that Huw was needed to stop them flogging a hefty asset for peanuts&lets not forget (and you lambast the trust for this) they partook in litigation themselves. Against a partner you could say. And lost. Are they not hostile litigious owners, should have come to an agreement etc etc etc. Are just some of their questionable decisions.
-again there you are repeating that if they lose they will ask Winter to either illegally siphon off funds or asset strip. This after an event they should have envisaged could happen and they could have prevented. You can spin and deflect all you want but that's a terrible look for the Americans. |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:59 - Sep 26 with 1392 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:05 - Sep 26 by Chief |
-agreed on Huws last act of heroism. That act though shows how careful we have to be with the Americans. It would have been a terrible deal if allowed to go through. The fact that it didn't go through (and frankly didn't need to) means to me there's more than just a bit of boy that cried wolf about us needing to 'take hard medicine's.
-nice insight into Exeter but that's not really relevant to us, there's never been any prospect of a fully trust owned SCFC in its current guise. I'd suggest though that the fact Exeter are a and always have been a lower league club and that's why they sell 'cheaply'. Little to do with owners, just the going rate for league 2 players. This also goes against your first point too. Remember it was our American owners who negioted that awful James deal but Hue scuppered it.
-no point going into your fourth paragraph. That never has been the reality.
-well we do not know how much has been put in, for another summer we are up on transfer fees so so I wouldn't go too overboard on what's been lent.
-i don't think that's true about dilution is it? I'm no expert but if Silver doesn't take his loan back he gets a %. This results in other shareholders % reducing. Where does the prospect of anyone buying any further shares come in? Any more share issuing would need to be approved by the majority owner's who wouldn't do that for the trust anyway. That would defeat the object of them colluding to keep the trust's shares low in the first place.
-again you've slipped back into insulting language&of course forgotten that the trust is not or never has been an investment vehicle to fund the clubs overheads. The 'Yankees' paying all the bills is a figment of your imagination. The football club has its own accounts.
-Well the owners have admitted themselves that they didn't act lawfully when buying the club! You've also said that Huw was needed to stop them flogging a hefty asset for peanuts&lets not forget (and you lambast the trust for this) they partook in litigation themselves. Against a partner you could say. And lost. Are they not hostile litigious owners, should have come to an agreement etc etc etc. Are just some of their questionable decisions.
-again there you are repeating that if they lose they will ask Winter to either illegally siphon off funds or asset strip. This after an event they should have envisaged could happen and they could have prevented. You can spin and deflect all you want but that's a terrible look for the Americans. |
You are a lost cause Im afraid and misquoting me is mischevious. I do not think the US owners would do anything remotely illegal. They have loaned money to the club because they have no choice. They do not even want the money back as it is to benefit the club.
Legal action will change everything and will be to the deteriment of the team and staff with player sales and job losses probably even before the case starts as the club will require a 'war fund' in order to cover the losses for loan withdrawals. The fans will also have to pay more for season tickets as a result of legal action in my opinion. The owners must prepare for the worst. |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:31 - Sep 26 with 1365 views | NotLoyal |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:59 - Sep 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are a lost cause Im afraid and misquoting me is mischevious. I do not think the US owners would do anything remotely illegal. They have loaned money to the club because they have no choice. They do not even want the money back as it is to benefit the club.
Legal action will change everything and will be to the deteriment of the team and staff with player sales and job losses probably even before the case starts as the club will require a 'war fund' in order to cover the losses for loan withdrawals. The fans will also have to pay more for season tickets as a result of legal action in my opinion. The owners must prepare for the worst. |
I would be interested to know more about a 'loan" of money when the person doing the loaning doesn't want back?
Isn't that a gift? |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:34 - Sep 26 with 1364 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:59 - Sep 26 by ReslovenSwan1 |
You are a lost cause Im afraid and misquoting me is mischevious. I do not think the US owners would do anything remotely illegal. They have loaned money to the club because they have no choice. They do not even want the money back as it is to benefit the club.
Legal action will change everything and will be to the deteriment of the team and staff with player sales and job losses probably even before the case starts as the club will require a 'war fund' in order to cover the losses for loan withdrawals. The fans will also have to pay more for season tickets as a result of legal action in my opinion. The owners must prepare for the worst. |
-i have not misquoted you once! Merely untangled your spin&applied your logic to other situations that show up your bias&hypocrisy.
-you've admitted yourself that this doomsday scenario of the Americans wanting money out of the club if they lose the case would mean siphoning off club funds. If the club isn't making money this would be illegal wouldn't it?
-How don't they have a choice? What happened to 'sweating the asset'? We signed a player for money this summer - a decent player but not an essential buy. Hardly the actions of a club needing loans to keep afloat.
-If they don't want they money back, why are they here? Goodness of their heart?
-the clubs war fund can't be used. The trust are not suing the football club. Stop being deliberately disingenuous by saying that.
-the owners (being the experienced investors in sports teams that they are) should have already planned for this possibility. Are you trying to say they didn't do their due diligence when buying their shares? | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:43 - Sep 26 with 1356 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:31 - Sep 26 by NotLoyal |
I would be interested to know more about a 'loan" of money when the person doing the loaning doesn't want back?
Isn't that a gift? |
Yea it would be if it was he describes. As usual he's deliberately conflated things. The scenarios are:
-Silverstein calls in his loan and takes interest out with it.
-He doesn't take his loan back but he gets a percentage of club instead.
A gift is giving something and not expecting anything back. This patently is not the case here. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:49 - Sep 26 with 1349 views | jasper_T |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:31 - Sep 26 by NotLoyal |
I would be interested to know more about a 'loan" of money when the person doing the loaning doesn't want back?
Isn't that a gift? |
An owner might loan a club money with the idea of repaying it only when the club is sold. It's not a gift because the value stays on the books. | | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 23:21 - Sep 26 with 1338 views | NotLoyal |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:49 - Sep 26 by jasper_T |
An owner might loan a club money with the idea of repaying it only when the club is sold. It's not a gift because the value stays on the books. |
I agree, but that is not what Resolven said. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 01:54 - Sep 27 with 1309 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 22:34 - Sep 26 by Chief |
-i have not misquoted you once! Merely untangled your spin&applied your logic to other situations that show up your bias&hypocrisy.
-you've admitted yourself that this doomsday scenario of the Americans wanting money out of the club if they lose the case would mean siphoning off club funds. If the club isn't making money this would be illegal wouldn't it?
-How don't they have a choice? What happened to 'sweating the asset'? We signed a player for money this summer - a decent player but not an essential buy. Hardly the actions of a club needing loans to keep afloat.
-If they don't want they money back, why are they here? Goodness of their heart?
-the clubs war fund can't be used. The trust are not suing the football club. Stop being deliberately disingenuous by saying that.
-the owners (being the experienced investors in sports teams that they are) should have already planned for this possibility. Are you trying to say they didn't do their due diligence when buying their shares? |
Please stop misrepresenting my posts. The US people can legally take money out of the club with the agreement of other shareholders in the form of dvidend a director loans and other means. Once the Trust is gone all the other directors will be in debt to buy the Trusts shares and can, without doubt, legally, recover the money from the club if that is what they want to do. The club has adequate player assets.
The loan to the club was probably requested by the Chairman to cover wages, transfer fee debts, and to but new players if possible and to provide a cash buffer. It may be used as a cheap bridging loan. Accordiing to the BBC the Americans do not intend calling in the loan but use the money to buy newly issued shares as an investment. This is a difficult concept for you as people you trust on this forum told you this would never happen.
So why invest now by buying shares? The reason is the shares are cheap in the Championship and expensive in the Premier league. They will be worth 3-4 times more in the PL or maybe more. The Trust can also buy these shares. If Cooper can pull it off that 300% in 12 month nice work.
Legal action changes everything and the approach will need to change as cash might be needed quickly by the owners in the event of legal costs. The loan will be recalled I expect. The owners will need the money to give to the Trust and thier London chums if the case goes badly. Winter will have to cut his cloth before this and make good the loan by significant cost cutting sacking loyal staff and selling some players. He will do what he needs to do. The US owners will have already discussed legal matters with him before his appointment.
The US people are probably experienced in legal matters and consider their odds in court pretty good. They will make provisions in any case for a court defeat. The cost to them will be the equivalent of a transfer fee of one 20 year old talented centre back and they can make the older season ticket holders pay more for their seats in the longer term.
Legal action is lose lose for Swansea fans. What are they going to do with £12m in a zombie fiancial fund for few decades when they cannot even manage money?. The club will be less competetive in the short term losing players and they will pay more to watch them. They will be compensated in knowing when the club gets back to the Premier league they gave £7-10mof their money to some well spoken people for London and £2-3m in tax possibly.
All hypothetical but that is how I see things. Lets hope it does not happen and the club can work together to get back to the PL. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 07:47 - Sep 27 with 1277 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 01:54 - Sep 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Please stop misrepresenting my posts. The US people can legally take money out of the club with the agreement of other shareholders in the form of dvidend a director loans and other means. Once the Trust is gone all the other directors will be in debt to buy the Trusts shares and can, without doubt, legally, recover the money from the club if that is what they want to do. The club has adequate player assets.
The loan to the club was probably requested by the Chairman to cover wages, transfer fee debts, and to but new players if possible and to provide a cash buffer. It may be used as a cheap bridging loan. Accordiing to the BBC the Americans do not intend calling in the loan but use the money to buy newly issued shares as an investment. This is a difficult concept for you as people you trust on this forum told you this would never happen.
So why invest now by buying shares? The reason is the shares are cheap in the Championship and expensive in the Premier league. They will be worth 3-4 times more in the PL or maybe more. The Trust can also buy these shares. If Cooper can pull it off that 300% in 12 month nice work.
Legal action changes everything and the approach will need to change as cash might be needed quickly by the owners in the event of legal costs. The loan will be recalled I expect. The owners will need the money to give to the Trust and thier London chums if the case goes badly. Winter will have to cut his cloth before this and make good the loan by significant cost cutting sacking loyal staff and selling some players. He will do what he needs to do. The US owners will have already discussed legal matters with him before his appointment.
The US people are probably experienced in legal matters and consider their odds in court pretty good. They will make provisions in any case for a court defeat. The cost to them will be the equivalent of a transfer fee of one 20 year old talented centre back and they can make the older season ticket holders pay more for their seats in the longer term.
Legal action is lose lose for Swansea fans. What are they going to do with £12m in a zombie fiancial fund for few decades when they cannot even manage money?. The club will be less competetive in the short term losing players and they will pay more to watch them. They will be compensated in knowing when the club gets back to the Premier league they gave £7-10mof their money to some well spoken people for London and £2-3m in tax possibly.
All hypothetical but that is how I see things. Lets hope it does not happen and the club can work together to get back to the PL. |
-Haven't misrepresented you at all, again I've just cut through your bluster.
-so if the Americans lose the case (which as experienced business men, they should have made contingency plans for) (a case brought for sneakily &possibly illegally colluding which they've admitted to -it's on film), they will asset strip Swansea City FC. This is a terrible look for them.
-who told me that would never happen? Yes I'm aware of what the loan entails its laid out simply in my previous post.
-not sure what that next paragraph is about? Buying more shares? For that to happen the Americans would have to either sell some or issue more, diluting themselves. Why would they do either? Complete red herring.
-more talk of asset stripping late in your reply there.
-yes indeed if the Americans are the honorable people you like to make out they will pay their dues in the event of the loss and not cause any detriment to Swansea City FC. The club isn't being sued so shouldn't be asset stripped&if they do that it fully justifies the litigation against them. Best get funds ready for that war chest, because the Americans will have shown what they're capable of. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:57 - Sep 27 with 1226 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 07:47 - Sep 27 by Chief |
-Haven't misrepresented you at all, again I've just cut through your bluster.
-so if the Americans lose the case (which as experienced business men, they should have made contingency plans for) (a case brought for sneakily &possibly illegally colluding which they've admitted to -it's on film), they will asset strip Swansea City FC. This is a terrible look for them.
-who told me that would never happen? Yes I'm aware of what the loan entails its laid out simply in my previous post.
-not sure what that next paragraph is about? Buying more shares? For that to happen the Americans would have to either sell some or issue more, diluting themselves. Why would they do either? Complete red herring.
-more talk of asset stripping late in your reply there.
-yes indeed if the Americans are the honorable people you like to make out they will pay their dues in the event of the loss and not cause any detriment to Swansea City FC. The club isn't being sued so shouldn't be asset stripped&if they do that it fully justifies the litigation against them. Best get funds ready for that war chest, because the Americans will have shown what they're capable of. |
If you want to believe there are no consequences for the club of the Supporters Trust forcing the other owners to buy their shares at inflated prices then you are welcome to that view. It is very unrealistic in my view. I have tried to explain the facts to you but it is tough going. There ares gaps in your knowledge base. I have recommended to Kieth an online football finances Q and A facility to help with this. I recommend you read the finance sections of the boardsheets and perhaps buy some shares which give much better returns than the banks.
I will come back to you to again when 100 people are laid off as the owners endeavour to recoup their personal loses from the business they now own 100%. The bloody nose given to them by the people of Swansea will be paid for down the road. This is brexit Britain the ordinary Joe makes the decisions for good or bad. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 15:51 - Sep 27 with 1208 views | waynekerr55 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:57 - Sep 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If you want to believe there are no consequences for the club of the Supporters Trust forcing the other owners to buy their shares at inflated prices then you are welcome to that view. It is very unrealistic in my view. I have tried to explain the facts to you but it is tough going. There ares gaps in your knowledge base. I have recommended to Kieth an online football finances Q and A facility to help with this. I recommend you read the finance sections of the boardsheets and perhaps buy some shares which give much better returns than the banks.
I will come back to you to again when 100 people are laid off as the owners endeavour to recoup their personal loses from the business they now own 100%. The bloody nose given to them by the people of Swansea will be paid for down the road. This is brexit Britain the ordinary Joe makes the decisions for good or bad. |
Chances are those 100 people will be laid off due to the ongoing Covid issue.
I think the point being missed is that it didn't need to be this way |  |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 16:16 - Sep 27 with 1201 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 13:57 - Sep 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
If you want to believe there are no consequences for the club of the Supporters Trust forcing the other owners to buy their shares at inflated prices then you are welcome to that view. It is very unrealistic in my view. I have tried to explain the facts to you but it is tough going. There ares gaps in your knowledge base. I have recommended to Kieth an online football finances Q and A facility to help with this. I recommend you read the finance sections of the boardsheets and perhaps buy some shares which give much better returns than the banks.
I will come back to you to again when 100 people are laid off as the owners endeavour to recoup their personal loses from the business they now own 100%. The bloody nose given to them by the people of Swansea will be paid for down the road. This is brexit Britain the ordinary Joe makes the decisions for good or bad. |
I never said that there wouldn't be any potential consequences of the sell outs&buyers acting illegally&the trust seeking justice. Let's hope there isn't&they treat the club with respect. There's no excuse for them not doing so. They are meant to be experienced investors&knew their actions could have consequences. The trust shouldn't feel guilty or held to ransom whatsoever. They are the wronged party.
I'll ignore the personal patronising slights.
Yea I'll be waiting. If the yanks are callous enough to asset strip, that's their bag and will just confirm a lot of fans fears.
And they won't own 100%. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:55 - Sep 27 with 1178 views | Treforys_Jack |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 15:51 - Sep 27 by waynekerr55 |
Chances are those 100 people will be laid off due to the ongoing Covid issue.
I think the point being missed is that it didn't need to be this way |
The last sentence is hitting the bloody nail right on the head, sad to be honest. Heroes to zero's...... |  | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:42 - Sep 27 with 1148 views | BillyChong |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 01:54 - Sep 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Please stop misrepresenting my posts. The US people can legally take money out of the club with the agreement of other shareholders in the form of dvidend a director loans and other means. Once the Trust is gone all the other directors will be in debt to buy the Trusts shares and can, without doubt, legally, recover the money from the club if that is what they want to do. The club has adequate player assets.
The loan to the club was probably requested by the Chairman to cover wages, transfer fee debts, and to but new players if possible and to provide a cash buffer. It may be used as a cheap bridging loan. Accordiing to the BBC the Americans do not intend calling in the loan but use the money to buy newly issued shares as an investment. This is a difficult concept for you as people you trust on this forum told you this would never happen.
So why invest now by buying shares? The reason is the shares are cheap in the Championship and expensive in the Premier league. They will be worth 3-4 times more in the PL or maybe more. The Trust can also buy these shares. If Cooper can pull it off that 300% in 12 month nice work.
Legal action changes everything and the approach will need to change as cash might be needed quickly by the owners in the event of legal costs. The loan will be recalled I expect. The owners will need the money to give to the Trust and thier London chums if the case goes badly. Winter will have to cut his cloth before this and make good the loan by significant cost cutting sacking loyal staff and selling some players. He will do what he needs to do. The US owners will have already discussed legal matters with him before his appointment.
The US people are probably experienced in legal matters and consider their odds in court pretty good. They will make provisions in any case for a court defeat. The cost to them will be the equivalent of a transfer fee of one 20 year old talented centre back and they can make the older season ticket holders pay more for their seats in the longer term.
Legal action is lose lose for Swansea fans. What are they going to do with £12m in a zombie fiancial fund for few decades when they cannot even manage money?. The club will be less competetive in the short term losing players and they will pay more to watch them. They will be compensated in knowing when the club gets back to the Premier league they gave £7-10mof their money to some well spoken people for London and £2-3m in tax possibly.
All hypothetical but that is how I see things. Lets hope it does not happen and the club can work together to get back to the PL. |
What if things went pair shaped and the Trust were called to keep the club afloat with that £12 million. Would you support them then?
Also, I can’t see many people paying an extra 20% season ticket supplement without the Americans investing more on the playing sides of things. Totally out of touch if you think that would be an option. | | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:10 - Sep 27 with 1152 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 16:16 - Sep 27 by Chief |
I never said that there wouldn't be any potential consequences of the sell outs&buyers acting illegally&the trust seeking justice. Let's hope there isn't&they treat the club with respect. There's no excuse for them not doing so. They are meant to be experienced investors&knew their actions could have consequences. The trust shouldn't feel guilty or held to ransom whatsoever. They are the wronged party.
I'll ignore the personal patronising slights.
Yea I'll be waiting. If the yanks are callous enough to asset strip, that's their bag and will just confirm a lot of fans fears.
And they won't own 100%. |
Nothing patronising at all. It is clear you are not well versed in things relating to investments and corporate governance. Nothing wrong with that.
I have been buying and selling shares for 35 years. TSB was my first dabble £300 in 1985. I have bought new issues, used my shareholder right to buy discounted new shares and seen my assets diluted more than once and seen some holdings wiped out completely. It is not unfair it is business. There is a imit to how far the share price can drop but no limit how high it can rise to. I won and I lost and I won again. The fans, when they became owners signed up for these things and have done very well. You do not get emmotional when thing do not go your way.
I try to buy at the botton and sell at the top. The Trust did the first bit. I have had several interviews with financial consultant that lay out the risk piramid. I told them my risk profile was 4 out 10 low medium. No special insight.
I do know, as do many of the professionals on the board must have known, that the Trust once it was in the PL was at the peak of the pyramid. 10 out of 10. SUPER HIGH RISK. High growth no income.
Between 2006 nd 2016 the rise in the asset value was stupendous. x100. You will not get those returns anywhere. High risk high reward. By probably 2013 the Trust like the other sharehlolders should have been looking to diversify. The Trust should have taken advice and without doubt put 75% of its holding up for sale.
When the Court hears of the Trust's investment approach there will be giggles in the court room and the Judges left eyebrow will rise and a suppressed smile will come onto his face. I would not like to defend their investment approach in court for sure. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:17 - Sep 27 with 1138 views | BillyChong |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:10 - Sep 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Nothing patronising at all. It is clear you are not well versed in things relating to investments and corporate governance. Nothing wrong with that.
I have been buying and selling shares for 35 years. TSB was my first dabble £300 in 1985. I have bought new issues, used my shareholder right to buy discounted new shares and seen my assets diluted more than once and seen some holdings wiped out completely. It is not unfair it is business. There is a imit to how far the share price can drop but no limit how high it can rise to. I won and I lost and I won again. The fans, when they became owners signed up for these things and have done very well. You do not get emmotional when thing do not go your way.
I try to buy at the botton and sell at the top. The Trust did the first bit. I have had several interviews with financial consultant that lay out the risk piramid. I told them my risk profile was 4 out 10 low medium. No special insight.
I do know, as do many of the professionals on the board must have known, that the Trust once it was in the PL was at the peak of the pyramid. 10 out of 10. SUPER HIGH RISK. High growth no income.
Between 2006 nd 2016 the rise in the asset value was stupendous. x100. You will not get those returns anywhere. High risk high reward. By probably 2013 the Trust like the other sharehlolders should have been looking to diversify. The Trust should have taken advice and without doubt put 75% of its holding up for sale.
When the Court hears of the Trust's investment approach there will be giggles in the court room and the Judges left eyebrow will rise and a suppressed smile will come onto his face. I would not like to defend their investment approach in court for sure. |
The model/aims of a supporters trust isn’t to make a profit though. You claim to be knowledgable, and aren’t shy of letting everyone know. But fail to grasp this sample fact. | | | |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:27 - Sep 27 with 1142 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:10 - Sep 27 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Nothing patronising at all. It is clear you are not well versed in things relating to investments and corporate governance. Nothing wrong with that.
I have been buying and selling shares for 35 years. TSB was my first dabble £300 in 1985. I have bought new issues, used my shareholder right to buy discounted new shares and seen my assets diluted more than once and seen some holdings wiped out completely. It is not unfair it is business. There is a imit to how far the share price can drop but no limit how high it can rise to. I won and I lost and I won again. The fans, when they became owners signed up for these things and have done very well. You do not get emmotional when thing do not go your way.
I try to buy at the botton and sell at the top. The Trust did the first bit. I have had several interviews with financial consultant that lay out the risk piramid. I told them my risk profile was 4 out 10 low medium. No special insight.
I do know, as do many of the professionals on the board must have known, that the Trust once it was in the PL was at the peak of the pyramid. 10 out of 10. SUPER HIGH RISK. High growth no income.
Between 2006 nd 2016 the rise in the asset value was stupendous. x100. You will not get those returns anywhere. High risk high reward. By probably 2013 the Trust like the other sharehlolders should have been looking to diversify. The Trust should have taken advice and without doubt put 75% of its holding up for sale.
When the Court hears of the Trust's investment approach there will be giggles in the court room and the Judges left eyebrow will rise and a suppressed smile will come onto his face. I would not like to defend their investment approach in court for sure. |
-your CV is very impressive, but of little relevance to our discussion.
-yea the trust I'm sure are also became fully aware that dilution was a possibility once the Americans bought their shares. They however are also aware of recourse actions when being unfairly prejudiced against. By the same token the Americans are experienced inventors. They shouldn't get emotional when things do not go their way.
-you obviously have an eye for this stuff, why not put your expertise to good use and help the trust instead of running them down at every opportunity like a keyboard warrior.
-Why would the court need to know or care about the trust's 'investment approach'? What relevance would that be to the facts of the case?
- Again your mask has slipped - there's no need to be a knob when discussing this. ' Giggles in the court'. I doubt a court would be that unprofessional and the fact that you would fabricate such a fantasy is very telling. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 21:28 - Sep 27 with 1126 views | waynekerr55 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 20:27 - Sep 27 by Chief |
-your CV is very impressive, but of little relevance to our discussion.
-yea the trust I'm sure are also became fully aware that dilution was a possibility once the Americans bought their shares. They however are also aware of recourse actions when being unfairly prejudiced against. By the same token the Americans are experienced inventors. They shouldn't get emotional when things do not go their way.
-you obviously have an eye for this stuff, why not put your expertise to good use and help the trust instead of running them down at every opportunity like a keyboard warrior.
-Why would the court need to know or care about the trust's 'investment approach'? What relevance would that be to the facts of the case?
- Again your mask has slipped - there's no need to be a knob when discussing this. ' Giggles in the court'. I doubt a court would be that unprofessional and the fact that you would fabricate such a fantasy is very telling. |
Giggles in court- what like the time Jenkins owned up that he signed off (fake) minutes without checking them | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 00:30 - Sep 28 with 1097 views | theloneranger |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 21:28 - Sep 27 by waynekerr55 |
Giggles in court- what like the time Jenkins owned up that he signed off (fake) minutes without checking them |
"Swansea chairman admits 'he did not make much' of paperwork he signed over the controversial resignation of board members"
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/ |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:07 - Sep 28 with 1034 views | vetchonian |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 12:39 - Sep 21 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The Trust in the lower leagues was a group of men and women putting £10 in the Trust going through some paperwork rituals with meetings and nominating an accountant to sit on the board to observe and have an occasional darts night at somewhere in a local boozer.
THEN EVERYTHING CHANGED. The sporting football superstar Roberto Martinez walked through the door and every thng apart from the Trust went on to a different level. The Trust was given £600,000 to handle quite extra ordinary.
At 2011 the Trust actually was and still is A MULTI MILLIION POUND ORGANISATION as a FACT.
Worth £21m in 2016 worth about £7-8M today. They desperately needed advice on how to handle their asset. No QC on £3000 per hour was needed just a simple financial consultant on £250 an hour for a days work. Their focus is not the best interests of the Club but the best interests of themselves. Its obvious. They have gone very badly astray and the members need to bring it back to common sense with the approintment of an independant assessment to set out the future. There is serious money to be made if the constitution allows it. From what I have read it does.The CV for the new leadership seem very impressive and should be able to do more than organised dart nights and the occasional curry. [Post edited 21 Sep 2020 12:44]
|
Answer me a few questions...the sellouts who preached "not like any other club"
Why did Jenkins insit on paying himself such a high salary?
Why wasnt a "professional" CEO employed?
Everything changed when we got promoted to the PL, the previous pay structure was not going to be able to be sustained,,,why didnt the board sit with the Trust and look at how things could be done to adapt to the new pressures?
Why were Directors allowed to take money out of the club via lucrative contracts?
There was a lot of naiviety as everyone thought the board who were fans " By the fans for the fans" would look after things to ensure that a Petty scenario never arose again ....little did we know the club was being used to further perosnal finacnial gain!!!!
Whilst in the early days some pain might have been felt by individuals to allow them to run the club this has been repaid a 100 times or more over.
The Trust were naive but not that naive to allow the first propsed sale and then HJ got sneaky!
I do not know who you are but you spout a load of rubbish amongst some small sensible comments the issue was the Trust trusted like many of the fans in the "fans" who ran the club that they would do always what was best for the club.....how wrong we all were | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:48 - Sep 28 with 1010 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 17:07 - Sep 28 by vetchonian |
Answer me a few questions...the sellouts who preached "not like any other club"
Why did Jenkins insit on paying himself such a high salary?
Why wasnt a "professional" CEO employed?
Everything changed when we got promoted to the PL, the previous pay structure was not going to be able to be sustained,,,why didnt the board sit with the Trust and look at how things could be done to adapt to the new pressures?
Why were Directors allowed to take money out of the club via lucrative contracts?
There was a lot of naiviety as everyone thought the board who were fans " By the fans for the fans" would look after things to ensure that a Petty scenario never arose again ....little did we know the club was being used to further perosnal finacnial gain!!!!
Whilst in the early days some pain might have been felt by individuals to allow them to run the club this has been repaid a 100 times or more over.
The Trust were naive but not that naive to allow the first propsed sale and then HJ got sneaky!
I do not know who you are but you spout a load of rubbish amongst some small sensible comments the issue was the Trust trusted like many of the fans in the "fans" who ran the club that they would do always what was best for the club.....how wrong we all were |
I will have a go at answering your questions. Obviously I do not work anyone associated and have not spoken to any individual. This is purely my perspective and theory.
The Chairman was paid the going rate as far as i can see after doing a good job keeping the club in the Premier league. A COO was appointed Mr Pearlman. Rumour has it he took a pay drp on relegation.
The club held regular board meeting so presumably any director could raise issues of importance.
Directors that did work for the club must have been agreed at board level i would think. Outside contractors require costly tender procedures and tightly writtens specification that can result in contractors claims and disputes. It may be better in some cases to use in house skills. It seemed to pan out well as far as I know.
The idea that the board were just ordinary fans is a myth. The south African and partner were venture capitalists. The Dutchman was not from Swansea, another was a rugby fan. They were set up to share the rewards with the fans by forming the Trust. Whatever they made the Trust had the potential to make the same or more. Do you think the venture capitalist did not invest for gain? Really?
In any business success will be rewarded . The Trust saw their investment increase 100 times. This is almost unprecendted in British business. An high risk high gain investment. To avoid disppointment always diversify. All they had to do was sell up in the Premier league. Even now they are sitting on a gold mine. £7m-£8m. 30 to 40 times the money invested. Playing the victim will not wash. A return to the PL could see the value treble again. The value goes up and down with form. Swansea's form over the last 18 years has been excellent.
The Trust move at a glacial pace and appear from afar unable to make agreements. This must be very fustrating to their business partners. They spent 4 months talking to the Americans getting nowhere which saw to chairmen resigning and could not complete mediation for unkown reasons. After 2-3 years they still have no funding finalised. Hopefully they never will and can get back to a mutually beneficial arrangement with the club after reorganisation. | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:52 - Sep 28 with 982 views | Chief |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 18:48 - Sep 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I will have a go at answering your questions. Obviously I do not work anyone associated and have not spoken to any individual. This is purely my perspective and theory.
The Chairman was paid the going rate as far as i can see after doing a good job keeping the club in the Premier league. A COO was appointed Mr Pearlman. Rumour has it he took a pay drp on relegation.
The club held regular board meeting so presumably any director could raise issues of importance.
Directors that did work for the club must have been agreed at board level i would think. Outside contractors require costly tender procedures and tightly writtens specification that can result in contractors claims and disputes. It may be better in some cases to use in house skills. It seemed to pan out well as far as I know.
The idea that the board were just ordinary fans is a myth. The south African and partner were venture capitalists. The Dutchman was not from Swansea, another was a rugby fan. They were set up to share the rewards with the fans by forming the Trust. Whatever they made the Trust had the potential to make the same or more. Do you think the venture capitalist did not invest for gain? Really?
In any business success will be rewarded . The Trust saw their investment increase 100 times. This is almost unprecendted in British business. An high risk high gain investment. To avoid disppointment always diversify. All they had to do was sell up in the Premier league. Even now they are sitting on a gold mine. £7m-£8m. 30 to 40 times the money invested. Playing the victim will not wash. A return to the PL could see the value treble again. The value goes up and down with form. Swansea's form over the last 18 years has been excellent.
The Trust move at a glacial pace and appear from afar unable to make agreements. This must be very fustrating to their business partners. They spent 4 months talking to the Americans getting nowhere which saw to chairmen resigning and could not complete mediation for unkown reasons. After 2-3 years they still have no funding finalised. Hopefully they never will and can get back to a mutually beneficial arrangement with the club after reorganisation. |
-fair enough on Katzen, his involvement was random, JVZ as much of a clown he acts was watching the Swans long before he became part owner. You can't seriously deny though that collectively they sold themselves as & revelled in the glory of being local fans.
-pointless going over the realities of your selling up sooner nonsense again.
-a lot of biased assumptions in the last paragraph. The legal delays have been explained many times over. In fact it was other parties who didn't respond to requests to negotiate or left if until the very late minute.
-you've ignored the fact again that the Americans pulled out of mediation&withdrew an offer.
-Imagine trying to work with that you know have worked to deceive you in the past!
Your lack of balance and empathy really is unbelievable! | |
| |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 21:04 - Sep 28 with 960 views | BillyChong |
| When Huw Jenkins talked about on 19:52 - Sep 28 by Chief |
-fair enough on Katzen, his involvement was random, JVZ as much of a clown he acts was watching the Swans long before he became part owner. You can't seriously deny though that collectively they sold themselves as & revelled in the glory of being local fans.
-pointless going over the realities of your selling up sooner nonsense again.
-a lot of biased assumptions in the last paragraph. The legal delays have been explained many times over. In fact it was other parties who didn't respond to requests to negotiate or left if until the very late minute.
-you've ignored the fact again that the Americans pulled out of mediation&withdrew an offer.
-Imagine trying to work with that you know have worked to deceive you in the past!
Your lack of balance and empathy really is unbelievable! |
He/she is also still ignoring the whole principal and purpose of the Trust | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.