| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale 19:56 - Sep 27 with 3843 views | NotLoyal |
Straight forward question. |  |
| |  |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 20:15 - Sep 27 with 1693 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Of course not. They told everyone they did not have the cash raising power to compete in the Premier league. It should have been no surprise to anyone that they sold up. Relegation would certainly have happened as more and more clubs in the Premier league broke fair play criteria one by one. Only Burney have matched Swanseas sustainablility and they must keep hold of Dyche. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 21:01 - Sep 27 with 1672 views | 34dfgdf54 |
Nah he would do exactly the same over and over again. Money talks.
Apparently going to Bradford though to join the board, must be bored. |  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 21:03 - Sep 27 with 1670 views | Chief |
Money aside and deep down, yes.
Jenkins obviously had issues with the way they were running the club hence him going rogue over the Dan James debacle & getting sacked by them in the aftermath. Dineen has also gone on record saying he had to return to help sort sponsorships so he doesn't seem too enamored either.
They must miss the adulation&respect he had in the locality. |  |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 21:20 - Sep 27 with 1652 views | Kilkennyjack |
There is a saying that without the fans then football is nothing.
Same applied to big nose and his buddies.
Without the support of the Swans fans, including Mel Nurse, the big nose take over would never have been half as successful. They enjoyed the full support of the Swans fans.
Not sure they have always remembered that fact.
I am sure they forgot that fact when the sold us out to the current owners.
They should have been open with the Trust. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 22:01 - Sep 27 with 1631 views | Treforys_Jack |
YES without a doubt. |  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 22:12 - Sep 27 with 1626 views | Luther27 |
Bit off piste here...but am I right in thinking that due to the share dilution the trust, board members have to stump up cash to maintain their equivalent percentage shares. If so it gives every person on here the opportunity to donate money to the trust thus becoming in effect owners with interest in the club. |  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 22:46 - Sep 27 with 1597 views | owainglyndwr |
Considering his business was struggling before the big Swans rise.
He and they are now multi millionaire's |  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 07:53 - Sep 28 with 1541 views | Best_loser |
He probably thought that sooner or later we are going down
At that point I'm going to be very unpopular
Might as well shove 10 million in my bank account while I still can
Would he do it again, probably, so no regrets |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 08:30 - Sep 28 with 1526 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 07:53 - Sep 28 by Best_loser |
He probably thought that sooner or later we are going down
At that point I'm going to be very unpopular
Might as well shove 10 million in my bank account while I still can
Would he do it again, probably, so no regrets |
Disagree with that, we could have tumbled right back to L2 and the majority of Swans fans would have been okay with it, as long as we were still locally owned and playing to our principles.
The old owners had so much goodwill in the bank, I reckon it would have carried them through. Don't forget they ere all very wealthy anyway on the back of 7 yrs in the PL. | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 09:08 - Sep 28 with 1505 views | OptimisticJack |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 08:30 - Sep 28 by Treforys_Jack |
Disagree with that, we could have tumbled right back to L2 and the majority of Swans fans would have been okay with it, as long as we were still locally owned and playing to our principles.
The old owners had so much goodwill in the bank, I reckon it would have carried them through. Don't forget they ere all very wealthy anyway on the back of 7 yrs in the PL. |
I must keep pointing out just prior to the takeover by the Americans the board voted for a 100% pay rise to each member.
A board member in his 80s went from 50k a year to 100k a year.
Huw Jenkins went from 250k a year to 500k a year!!
They say we couldnt compete in the Premier League.
Maybe we could have if they hadn't decide to dip into the till. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 09:16 - Sep 28 with 1486 views | Badlands |
None.
They realised when Laudrup was manager that the club's finances were not sustainable if they were to improve the squad and remain a PL side. They didn't have money to put in they knew some fans would demand.
Sensible decision. Had the Trust been more amenable to an all out sale it is very possible more interest would have been shown. |  |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 09:39 - Sep 28 with 1489 views | Chief |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 09:16 - Sep 28 by Badlands |
None.
They realised when Laudrup was manager that the club's finances were not sustainable if they were to improve the squad and remain a PL side. They didn't have money to put in they knew some fans would demand.
Sensible decision. Had the Trust been more amenable to an all out sale it is very possible more interest would have been shown. |
We spent plenty of money (clubs own funds) after the Laudrup era, a lot of it wasted on poor signings, so there was no need for anyone to put their own money in (apart from maybe some short term low bridging loans) that Martin Morgan had been doing.
So I'm sorry that's a myth.
How could the trust have been amenable to an all out sale if they were hidden from negotiations!? | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 10:05 - Sep 28 with 1474 views | raynor94 |
£10 million in the bank, after the bankruptcy of his roofing firm, aye he must be full of regrets! |  |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 10:27 - Sep 28 with 1467 views | Chief |
The OP said money aside mind.... | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 11:05 - Sep 28 with 1450 views | swan65split |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 21:03 - Sep 27 by Chief |
Money aside and deep down, yes.
Jenkins obviously had issues with the way they were running the club hence him going rogue over the Dan James debacle & getting sacked by them in the aftermath. Dineen has also gone on record saying he had to return to help sort sponsorships so he doesn't seem too enamored either.
They must miss the adulation&respect he had in the locality. |
"They must miss the adulation&respect he had in the locality."
Yes, instaed of walking into a room as Royalty, they must now walk in and look at someone and think " does they hate me?" , and continually have one eye on their back. |  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:19 - Sep 28 with 1425 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 11:05 - Sep 28 by swan65split |
"They must miss the adulation&respect he had in the locality."
Yes, instaed of walking into a room as Royalty, they must now walk in and look at someone and think " does they hate me?" , and continually have one eye on their back. |
Potential new investors will need to take this factor into consideration. Elements of the fans base are really very dim. I recall Malcom Struel's posh car being vandalised in the club car park back in the erly 80s after a poor result. That was a proper crisis and they were no fairy god mother Silverstein to come to the rescue.
Swansea steeped in socialist heritage just do not like rich people particularly rich local people. The spectacular top of the range facilities at Fairwood and Morfa and the newly painted Stadium and the status of the club as promotion favouritres cuts no ice with those that say that the owner took from the club not built it. Nonscence of course. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:31 - Sep 28 with 1409 views | Badlands |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 09:39 - Sep 28 by Chief |
We spent plenty of money (clubs own funds) after the Laudrup era, a lot of it wasted on poor signings, so there was no need for anyone to put their own money in (apart from maybe some short term low bridging loans) that Martin Morgan had been doing.
So I'm sorry that's a myth.
How could the trust have been amenable to an all out sale if they were hidden from negotiations!? |
You have misinterpreted what I wrote -
We spent money we earned - under Monk we started heading into the red and Jenkins and others realised huge debts were on the horizon. The only way to service those debts would be to decimate the squad or out their own money in (loans or gifts) they didn't have that sort of capital and probably didn't have the sort of collateral to put up as surety either.
As we now see, all group of fans expects the shareholders (some, only some of the shareholders) to personally finance Swansea City. If I owned 68% of the shares my message would be simple, "I will find £68 million if the group with 21% and individuals share holders match it with £32 million.
So I have no idea what with you are talking about in your opening paragraph..
You also misrepresent what I wrote about the Trust.
Prior to negotiations with Moores and Noell this ...
"The way in which we (as a club) work has been recognised around the world as a role model for clubs to follow and given the current strong position of the team and the club we do not believe that this is the correct time for the ownership or set up of the club to change.
"We fully recognise the excellent job that the current directors and shareholders have done, and our desire would be for this set-up to continue and for us to continue our progress in the same way that we have for the last 12 years.
"Our message to the other shareholders has therefore been that we do not wish to relinquish our shareholding in the football club."
If they had no interest in selling (let's be honest, at that time, if someone had told them a bus was about to hit them they would have refused to take any notice) I can see no reason why individual shareholders included them in the sale of their own property (shares).
There was never any offer of an all out sale (it is possible Peter Lang made an offer but that was speculative and as time has shown not a genuine offer) with Moores looking at just 30%
Offers for or offers of any 'all out sale' of Swansea City never happened.
In effect the Trust was trying to control 79% of the share holdings with their 21%. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:32 - Sep 28 with 1416 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 10:27 - Sep 28 by Chief |
The OP said money aside mind.... |
Yeah but money is everything in these guys worlds, it's a pointless question without it included surely? | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 13:23 - Sep 28 with 1395 views | Chief |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:19 - Sep 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Potential new investors will need to take this factor into consideration. Elements of the fans base are really very dim. I recall Malcom Struel's posh car being vandalised in the club car park back in the erly 80s after a poor result. That was a proper crisis and they were no fairy god mother Silverstein to come to the rescue.
Swansea steeped in socialist heritage just do not like rich people particularly rich local people. The spectacular top of the range facilities at Fairwood and Morfa and the newly painted Stadium and the status of the club as promotion favouritres cuts no ice with those that say that the owner took from the club not built it. Nonscence of course. |
Well that's obviously not true. The previous owners were extremely popular before they sold up even though they were fairly wealthy men | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:04 - Sep 28 with 1384 views | Chief |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:31 - Sep 28 by Badlands |
You have misinterpreted what I wrote -
We spent money we earned - under Monk we started heading into the red and Jenkins and others realised huge debts were on the horizon. The only way to service those debts would be to decimate the squad or out their own money in (loans or gifts) they didn't have that sort of capital and probably didn't have the sort of collateral to put up as surety either.
As we now see, all group of fans expects the shareholders (some, only some of the shareholders) to personally finance Swansea City. If I owned 68% of the shares my message would be simple, "I will find £68 million if the group with 21% and individuals share holders match it with £32 million.
So I have no idea what with you are talking about in your opening paragraph..
You also misrepresent what I wrote about the Trust.
Prior to negotiations with Moores and Noell this ...
"The way in which we (as a club) work has been recognised around the world as a role model for clubs to follow and given the current strong position of the team and the club we do not believe that this is the correct time for the ownership or set up of the club to change.
"We fully recognise the excellent job that the current directors and shareholders have done, and our desire would be for this set-up to continue and for us to continue our progress in the same way that we have for the last 12 years.
"Our message to the other shareholders has therefore been that we do not wish to relinquish our shareholding in the football club."
If they had no interest in selling (let's be honest, at that time, if someone had told them a bus was about to hit them they would have refused to take any notice) I can see no reason why individual shareholders included them in the sale of their own property (shares).
There was never any offer of an all out sale (it is possible Peter Lang made an offer but that was speculative and as time has shown not a genuine offer) with Moores looking at just 30%
Offers for or offers of any 'all out sale' of Swansea City never happened.
In effect the Trust was trying to control 79% of the share holdings with their 21%. |
I haven't misinterpreted you at all:
- Is that actually true that we started heading into the red under Monk then? We were still spending money on players at that point&after prior to the Americans arrival (Alberto Paloschi springs to mind). So even then was there need for outside investment?
-i can't speak for those people I don't want them to put money in and the club to be on the hook for paying it back at god knows what interest.
-my opening paragraph is self explanatory.
-there's some very good reasons why they should have been told of impending potential sale negotiations. 1 is morals and common courtesy. The trust lauded the previous ownership in those quotes so the relationship was good (actually perhaps too good). 2 is that it could actually be illegal! The amount of shares being sold whether it be 30% or 68% isn't really relevant.
-you'll have to elaborate on your last sentence. Can't see how you can come to that conclusion. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:48 - Sep 28 with 1341 views | britferry |
I still reckon a couple of them are hoping to buy the club on the cheap, especially Martin Morgan | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 15:25 - Sep 28 with 1342 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:04 - Sep 28 by Chief |
I haven't misinterpreted you at all:
- Is that actually true that we started heading into the red under Monk then? We were still spending money on players at that point&after prior to the Americans arrival (Alberto Paloschi springs to mind). So even then was there need for outside investment?
-i can't speak for those people I don't want them to put money in and the club to be on the hook for paying it back at god knows what interest.
-my opening paragraph is self explanatory.
-there's some very good reasons why they should have been told of impending potential sale negotiations. 1 is morals and common courtesy. The trust lauded the previous ownership in those quotes so the relationship was good (actually perhaps too good). 2 is that it could actually be illegal! The amount of shares being sold whether it be 30% or 68% isn't really relevant.
-you'll have to elaborate on your last sentence. Can't see how you can come to that conclusion. |
As I see it the Trust did not want to sell and may have chased off the previous investor in 2015 as perhaps pointed out by Badlands.
It seem perfectly morally sound to me for the other shareholders to arrange talks to sell their individual shares to the US potential buyers without referencing the shareholders who had told them they did not want to sell. Once the was a general ageeement in principle the Trust and the public in general was informed.
From what I recall the annoucemet of a sale was released in Spring 2016 and was not concluded until Autum 2016 a period of about 4 months. The Trust were not presented a 'fait a complet' and presumably had a window of opportunity to become invovled if that was their wish at the same terms. They could have done this by consent and agreement or by legal means. Instead of doing this they simple wrote a legal letter outlining their objections presuambly to discourage the sale for whatever reason. Any delay in the process had the capacity to derail the deal.
I concluded at the time that they did not want to sell. Possibly they did not have enough time to arrange their ducks in place. Given that they had already seen one investor walk away a year earlier this is somewhat surprising. Any new investor who partners with the Trust will have to buy into the baggage of decision making at a glacial pace, even in an era of zoom facetime and e mails. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 15:51 - Sep 28 with 1308 views | Darran |
Huw Jenkins does not regret anything because he’s one of the loveliest,sweetest,nicest,most honourable people around.
I know things about him in and out of football,several I would never post on any forum or anywhere because they involve his personal life.
He’s also one of the luckiest people alive especially as he had nothing to do with rescuing the club from the hands of Tony Petty and he was asked to get on board after all the hard work was done.
He wasn’t even watching Swansea City at the time of Tony Petty he was chairman of another football club.
Saying that he and the others were fully entitled to sell the shares they bought and owned.
I’ve read the resloven fella over the last few weeks and all he’s done is pump out untrue propaganda to try and make the Trust look like the bad boys.
If the chairman of the Trust stood up in front of hundreds of people and made a statement about me and it wasn’t true I’d use my right to reply.
The chairman of the Trust stood up in front of hundreds of people and said that Jenkins and Dineen had asked the Trust to rip up the SHA.
When they were told no Jenkins solicitor then wrote to the Trust and asked them to rip up the SHA.
If someone had said that about me and it wasn’t true I think I might have replied.
All FACTS. 100% FACTS. [Post edited 29 Sep 2020 11:27]
|  |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 16:23 - Sep 28 with 1295 views | Treforys_Jack |
That resolven fella is probably one of the Dineens or someone very close to them. That's the only excuse for some of the drivel he keeps spouting.
We spent a lot of money in the increasingly desperate attempt to stay in the PL, just most of it was shockingly bad, if only they had appointed a DoF rather than relying on HJ. | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 16:23 - Sep 28 with 1295 views | Chief |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 15:25 - Sep 28 by ReslovenSwan1 |
As I see it the Trust did not want to sell and may have chased off the previous investor in 2015 as perhaps pointed out by Badlands.
It seem perfectly morally sound to me for the other shareholders to arrange talks to sell their individual shares to the US potential buyers without referencing the shareholders who had told them they did not want to sell. Once the was a general ageeement in principle the Trust and the public in general was informed.
From what I recall the annoucemet of a sale was released in Spring 2016 and was not concluded until Autum 2016 a period of about 4 months. The Trust were not presented a 'fait a complet' and presumably had a window of opportunity to become invovled if that was their wish at the same terms. They could have done this by consent and agreement or by legal means. Instead of doing this they simple wrote a legal letter outlining their objections presuambly to discourage the sale for whatever reason. Any delay in the process had the capacity to derail the deal.
I concluded at the time that they did not want to sell. Possibly they did not have enough time to arrange their ducks in place. Given that they had already seen one investor walk away a year earlier this is somewhat surprising. Any new investor who partners with the Trust will have to buy into the baggage of decision making at a glacial pace, even in an era of zoom facetime and e mails. |
-agree with the first paragraph, the trust did their job because they were allowed to do so.
-funny you criticise the trust for litigating (after repeated attempts at negotiation) against a 'partner' but when the sell outs act behind their partners back (in a way that will disadvantage them) you won't even concede they were ethically wrong in doing so!
-the rest will be decided in court. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
