| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale 19:56 - Sep 27 with 4109 views | NotLoyal |
Straight forward question. |  |
| |  |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:35 - Sep 30 with 1000 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 23:01 - Sep 28 by Treforys_Jack |
Do you at least agree the sale was carried out in an underhand way? |
Well do you ? |  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:40 - Sep 30 with 999 views | Chief |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:12 - Sep 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Of course in an out of business. Generally nice people with good manners and often shrewd in business, Unlike the Trust. The fans like to vilify American business people, who want to make money, but doff their cap to the white collar South east English people who want an arm and a leg for doing very little. I emphasize the Public school people as I can empathise more with Kaplan and Levien who actually like football than the legal people who do not even like football.
The reputed £6-8m they could pocket from a successful legal case is so high because the Trust will not fund the case or take the risks themselves. The big dosh made in a few months will be the money generated for the Trust upto 2016 by the hard work of the so called sellouts over 14 years of hard graft and risk taking. |
-key difference you fail to mention there of course is that the Americans deceived the trust while that isn't the case with legal personnel working on the case (nationality completely irrelevant).
-second paragraph pure conjecture. |  |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:59 - Sep 30 with 985 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:40 - Sep 30 by Chief |
-key difference you fail to mention there of course is that the Americans deceived the trust while that isn't the case with legal personnel working on the case (nationality completely irrelevant).
-second paragraph pure conjecture. |
Why is it conjecture?. The members have voluntarily agreed to go to court and must have some idea as to the costs? Any significant additional cost that are likely should be put back to the memebers surely? .
Perhaps they should work out how much it will cost for a win, how much it will cost for a loss and then have a new vote. Are you a member? You must have been told the rough figures? Why not share them with us?
This football nationality is never irrelevant. If the legal people were from Swansea it would at least keep the money local and create one or two local jobs to compensate a little for jobs lost in the club. Looking at the accounts it looks as if they have spent around £150,000 so far. |  |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 15:20 - Sep 30 with 975 views | Chief |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:59 - Sep 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Why is it conjecture?. The members have voluntarily agreed to go to court and must have some idea as to the costs? Any significant additional cost that are likely should be put back to the memebers surely? .
Perhaps they should work out how much it will cost for a win, how much it will cost for a loss and then have a new vote. Are you a member? You must have been told the rough figures? Why not share them with us?
This football nationality is never irrelevant. If the legal people were from Swansea it would at least keep the money local and create one or two local jobs to compensate a little for jobs lost in the club. Looking at the accounts it looks as if they have spent around £150,000 so far. |
-because you are just putting your finger in the air guessing what arrangement they have. For all we know the Americans maybe ordered to pay the trust's legal costs.
-i am a member, don't believe figures have been discussed (maybe someone can correct me).
-in an ideal world that would be fantastic but you've got to select the counsel that you think will suit you &your case. But that's not I or you really meant anyway. It was another attempt from you to paint the trust as racists. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 16:29 - Sep 30 with 958 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 15:20 - Sep 30 by Chief |
-because you are just putting your finger in the air guessing what arrangement they have. For all we know the Americans maybe ordered to pay the trust's legal costs.
-i am a member, don't believe figures have been discussed (maybe someone can correct me).
-in an ideal world that would be fantastic but you've got to select the counsel that you think will suit you &your case. But that's not I or you really meant anyway. It was another attempt from you to paint the trust as racists. |
Trust racists? Do not be silly.
As a member you do not seem to have much idea what is going on or what you voted for.
You want to take money from the owners give possibly 40-60% of it away to English legal people.
You have no idea how much this will be.
You have not thought through how this will affect jobs at the club.
You have not thought through what the owners will do with their emergency loan.
You have no idea what the Trust will do with the money although you state they are not suited to handling / investing large amount of money like £12m.
You have not considered how potential future investors will look on the Trust after they give the current owners a broken nose.
You do not know the finacial costs of losing the case.
And fans like to talk due dilligence. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 17:29 - Sep 30 with 940 views | Treforys_Jack |
Resolven, Why won't you answer the question I've asked you twice? | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 18:28 - Sep 30 with 926 views | Chief |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 16:29 - Sep 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Trust racists? Do not be silly.
As a member you do not seem to have much idea what is going on or what you voted for.
You want to take money from the owners give possibly 40-60% of it away to English legal people.
You have no idea how much this will be.
You have not thought through how this will affect jobs at the club.
You have not thought through what the owners will do with their emergency loan.
You have no idea what the Trust will do with the money although you state they are not suited to handling / investing large amount of money like £12m.
You have not considered how potential future investors will look on the Trust after they give the current owners a broken nose.
You do not know the finacial costs of losing the case.
And fans like to talk due dilligence. |
-juat pointing out that you keep saying that fans/trust dont like them due to their nationality. Which isn't true.
-or possibly not? As discussed we don't know the terms of the contract. Your worse case scenario figures still present a large amount of cash.
-nor do you.
-well I can't predict whether the Americans will choose to deliberately handicap the club through spite if they lose&cause things such as job losses.
-Silverstein isn't involved in this case anyway. But if he pouts&takes his loan out he doesn't get his 5%. One less snout in the trough. If the others decide to do that, see my point above. We also don't know much these loans were for remember.
-as you keep pointing out financial advisors are out there&what's the rush? Is there the need for rash decisions with the cash? Let's see how things look if and when it's awarded.
-why would future investors care? The trust won't be shareholders if they win? And if the trust don't win&remain shareholders, if potential 'investors'(lol) are put off by the prospect of dealing with them then great. We wouldn't want 'investors' like that.
-nor do you. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 19:29 - Sep 30 with 910 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 17:29 - Sep 30 by Treforys_Jack |
Resolven, Why won't you answer the question I've asked you twice? |
Was the sellers actions "underhand"?
I was not involved so I cannot judge. They would argue that they took the pragmatic decision in the best interests of the club including its employees. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 20:14 - Sep 30 with 907 views | Chief |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 19:29 - Sep 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Was the sellers actions "underhand"?
I was not involved so I cannot judge. They would argue that they took the pragmatic decision in the best interests of the club including its employees. |
You haven't been involved in any of the trust's decisions either but you seem eager to judge them. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 20:32 - Sep 30 with 905 views | Garyjack |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 00:06 - Sep 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I do not expect widespread aclaim. Abuse and mocking is to be expected. Afterall I have done the unthinkable and criticized the Trust, a body of men and women upto 1000 in size. There are a lot of them but not many appear to be thinking things through and asking questions.
They truly have done a really awful job. Even if they win in court which might not even happen they will hand over £7-8m of the Swansea city owners money to English public school people who prefer rowing. The owners will then endeavour to take the money back from the club by sending their bill straight back to the fans. The fans will pay more to watch a weaker team as a result of the payment of millions to the English funders.
The Trust will then be holding around £12m in a zombie trust fund which they do not have the skills to manage. They have no plan for using the money. It will be £7-8m less than what it should have been had they put themselves up for sale in 2015 when US buyers were circling. A horrible strategic mistake.
Unthinkably the losses could be even greater than that if the club return to the PL down the road. Silverstein and the US people will be minted with the new cheap shares the Trust could not afford, having already flooded the fans with extra costs. They are not likey to be offered a way back into the club for many years until this sad episode is long forgotten.
If you are a Trust member you have good reason to urge thinking people not to debate with me as i am shamefully one of the few that has actually thought it through. |
Dear god! How many times can someone post the same thing over and over again! 
You remind me of a former poster, but i can't quite put my finger on it............ploppy maybe? Anyway, let's try a different approach.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/
Read and digest, and remember that the trust put the offer to their members who voted to accept the deal, only for the YANKS (and Jenkins) to then try and firstly renegotiate, then pull out of the deal they offered just 6 months later. And you carry on with relentless criticism of them when they have clearly bent over backwards to bring the matter to a somewhat amicable conclusion. Isn't it now clear to you that the YANKS and sell outs have brought upon this very unfortunate situation themselves, because it should be crystal clear even to the most blinkered of folk. The trust have even attempted mediation since then and been ignored. What the hell did you expect them to do? Walk away and say "yep we've been shafted, and the 200k of fans money put in to save the club and our 21% shareholding is now worthless "? Don't be an idiot all of your life son, try to realise that there's more going on here than there is in your tiny one track mind! [Post edited 30 Sep 2020 20:53]
|  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 09:34 - Oct 1 with 816 views | chad |
Res love please recall the amount at issue is £20 million plus, not the much lower figures which you keep quoting as fact, but seems pure wild speculation. I am also amused at your prejudice closer to home, whilst backing to the hilt our friends from across the Atlantic that have most definitely (by their own recorded admission - whilst making stuttering and contradictory statements) treated the Trust in a underhand manner in relation to the deal and have also repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
Perhaps you could provide any evidence whatsoever that you have to support the figures you keep trying to instil as fact.
Also your false innuendo that the action is against the club rather than against the sellouts and new majority owners individually.
Also I will again remind you that in the event of us winning our strong legal case, that given the new majority owners agreed a deal and then unilaterally backed out, and have also repeatedly failed to respond within prescribed timescales, and refusing to negotiate, the most likely outcome will be them not only having to purchase our shares at £20 million plus, but also having to pay costs.
I would also welcome any evidence of a single penny of investment in the club since the sellouts with lies and underhand dealings, stuffed their pockets with many millions of windfall profits (that the club saw not a penny of). And which they would have been highly unlikely to have achieved if they had acted honestly and above board. This is interesting because despite your insistence that the sellouts had to sell for the good of the club in order to have access to investment, there has in fact been none in all this time. |  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:15 - Oct 1 with 788 views | BillyChong |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 09:34 - Oct 1 by chad |
Res love please recall the amount at issue is £20 million plus, not the much lower figures which you keep quoting as fact, but seems pure wild speculation. I am also amused at your prejudice closer to home, whilst backing to the hilt our friends from across the Atlantic that have most definitely (by their own recorded admission - whilst making stuttering and contradictory statements) treated the Trust in a underhand manner in relation to the deal and have also repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
Perhaps you could provide any evidence whatsoever that you have to support the figures you keep trying to instil as fact.
Also your false innuendo that the action is against the club rather than against the sellouts and new majority owners individually.
Also I will again remind you that in the event of us winning our strong legal case, that given the new majority owners agreed a deal and then unilaterally backed out, and have also repeatedly failed to respond within prescribed timescales, and refusing to negotiate, the most likely outcome will be them not only having to purchase our shares at £20 million plus, but also having to pay costs.
I would also welcome any evidence of a single penny of investment in the club since the sellouts with lies and underhand dealings, stuffed their pockets with many millions of windfall profits (that the club saw not a penny of). And which they would have been highly unlikely to have achieved if they had acted honestly and above board. This is interesting because despite your insistence that the sellouts had to sell for the good of the club in order to have access to investment, there has in fact been none in all this time. |
Don’t expect a response to this. |  | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:27 - Oct 1 with 790 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:15 - Oct 1 by BillyChong |
Don’t expect a response to this. |
Its amazing how some people can be wrong most of the time. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:46 - Oct 1 with 784 views | chad |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:27 - Oct 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Its amazing how some people can be wrong most of the time. |
Excellent, it is good you are recognising your faults, well done. | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 17:23 - Oct 1 with 739 views | onehunglow |
Dr Parnassus
H
Having somebody on ignore is not a matter of being a whimp but a sensible option for the many tw@ats who make one irate/irritated or plain angry. Why read something and get angry;better not to. I have several on ignore and life is far better as well a not dragging this site into the sewer that is so prevalent on planetswans . Of people want to simply drag up old spats/pis me off,they go straight to ignore. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 19:50 - Oct 1 with 714 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 09:34 - Oct 1 by chad |
Res love please recall the amount at issue is £20 million plus, not the much lower figures which you keep quoting as fact, but seems pure wild speculation. I am also amused at your prejudice closer to home, whilst backing to the hilt our friends from across the Atlantic that have most definitely (by their own recorded admission - whilst making stuttering and contradictory statements) treated the Trust in a underhand manner in relation to the deal and have also repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy.
Perhaps you could provide any evidence whatsoever that you have to support the figures you keep trying to instil as fact.
Also your false innuendo that the action is against the club rather than against the sellouts and new majority owners individually.
Also I will again remind you that in the event of us winning our strong legal case, that given the new majority owners agreed a deal and then unilaterally backed out, and have also repeatedly failed to respond within prescribed timescales, and refusing to negotiate, the most likely outcome will be them not only having to purchase our shares at £20 million plus, but also having to pay costs.
I would also welcome any evidence of a single penny of investment in the club since the sellouts with lies and underhand dealings, stuffed their pockets with many millions of windfall profits (that the club saw not a penny of). And which they would have been highly unlikely to have achieved if they had acted honestly and above board. This is interesting because despite your insistence that the sellouts had to sell for the good of the club in order to have access to investment, there has in fact been none in all this time. |
The figure quoted of a potential £12 m recovered from a £21m claim is based on past precedent on these sorts of claims where the funder of the claim wants between 40-60% of the win. An uncnfirmed leaked post on a forum suggested these figures were not far off the mark. Gains on share profits are normally taxable.
I argue that the legal action against the owners will have a direct link to the fortunes of the club. One particular aspect is the recent emergency loan given to Mr Winter, I suggest that it is likely that, if the case is opened, this loan will be immediately recovered. This means jobs going. This is my theory and is what I would do if I was them. I would not be surprised at all if discussions of this nature have not already been had. Fans cannot harm the owners without harming the club in a post Covid world. They must know this. The owners will without doubt recover loses from the Swansea adventure from Swansea assets including in future seasons the season ticket loyal suporters some of whom have been also members of the Trust at one time or another.
There are costs and costs you do not differentiate. The court costs are separate from the funders cost. The massive funders fees will come from the Trust, You have presented one side of the story regarding mediation which might not be accurate. I find it unthinkable that the club owners did not attend as required.
No one made windfall profits. All profits were generaled over 14 years of hard graft and going without. No profits were made as all surplusses were reinvested on the way up in infrastructure and players. These profits could only be recovered by selling shares.
The owners will argue that there is evidence that the Trust did not want to sell 21% of their shares in 2016. This, they will say, is given in the reality that the Trust could not even sell 5% of their shares let alone 21%, after 4 months of discussions with them in 2017. One chairman resigned over the terms qnd another in light of aggressive opposition. The terms were reported to be the same as those agreed in 2016. The theory that the Trust did not want to sell was not only given their statements but also tested out.
There has been a cash injection into the club by Mr Silverstein matched by the US owners. This was reported by the BBC and numerous publications and put on the club website. This cannot be a made up story. It is an initial loan to be converted into newly issues shares that minortiy shareholders can buy. Mr Winter will presumably confirm this. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 20:33 - Oct 1 with 700 views | swancity |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 19:50 - Oct 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The figure quoted of a potential £12 m recovered from a £21m claim is based on past precedent on these sorts of claims where the funder of the claim wants between 40-60% of the win. An uncnfirmed leaked post on a forum suggested these figures were not far off the mark. Gains on share profits are normally taxable.
I argue that the legal action against the owners will have a direct link to the fortunes of the club. One particular aspect is the recent emergency loan given to Mr Winter, I suggest that it is likely that, if the case is opened, this loan will be immediately recovered. This means jobs going. This is my theory and is what I would do if I was them. I would not be surprised at all if discussions of this nature have not already been had. Fans cannot harm the owners without harming the club in a post Covid world. They must know this. The owners will without doubt recover loses from the Swansea adventure from Swansea assets including in future seasons the season ticket loyal suporters some of whom have been also members of the Trust at one time or another.
There are costs and costs you do not differentiate. The court costs are separate from the funders cost. The massive funders fees will come from the Trust, You have presented one side of the story regarding mediation which might not be accurate. I find it unthinkable that the club owners did not attend as required.
No one made windfall profits. All profits were generaled over 14 years of hard graft and going without. No profits were made as all surplusses were reinvested on the way up in infrastructure and players. These profits could only be recovered by selling shares.
The owners will argue that there is evidence that the Trust did not want to sell 21% of their shares in 2016. This, they will say, is given in the reality that the Trust could not even sell 5% of their shares let alone 21%, after 4 months of discussions with them in 2017. One chairman resigned over the terms qnd another in light of aggressive opposition. The terms were reported to be the same as those agreed in 2016. The theory that the Trust did not want to sell was not only given their statements but also tested out.
There has been a cash injection into the club by Mr Silverstein matched by the US owners. This was reported by the BBC and numerous publications and put on the club website. This cannot be a made up story. It is an initial loan to be converted into newly issues shares that minortiy shareholders can buy. Mr Winter will presumably confirm this. |
Can’t agree with too much that you say Leigh | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 21:21 - Oct 1 with 686 views | Garyjack |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 23:55 - Sep 30 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Garyjack There is no limit to the posting of opinions which are usually answers to other points, I understand there is an ignore facility which seem to me a way out for whimps. Go that option if you prefer. I do not mind at all. It seems reasonable to me to have an alternative viewpoint simply for the purposes of open and democratic debate.
Opinions criticising the US owners and supporting the Trust out number those that defend the Owners by an order of about 10 to 1 in my estimation. Pro owner posts are also more interesting and questioning of tired narratives. It is only of a forum like this that a loan / investment into the club can be characterised by The Chief as "another snout in the trough". Respectable US investors are treated with contempt. Mr Silverstein in particular has highly ethical back story according to his resume.
The Trust have not been shafted. They hold the exact percentage of the club they did in 2015. They have no allies but they had no alies in 2015 either. A Dutchman a south African and a couple of Welshmen who wanted to sell have been replaced by Americans who wanted to buy.
The 2017 sales talks were aborted when the US buyers concluded the Trust were unable to make a deal because of considerable internal frictions within the organisation. Highlighted below. It is unusual to expect to make a deal when the seller is not in agreement.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/
The membership can decide for themselves as to whether the team did their best to follow through on their mandate. |
Put you on ignore? IGNORE???  Why would i do that? I have never put anyone on ignore in 19 years of posting on this site. And under one username i may add ploppy (amongst many other usernames you have created).
Oh no, whilst i find you about as irritating as an itch on ones skin when you put on an item of new clothing without taking the tags off, i also find your daily doses of trust bashing quite humorous, albeit in a bemused sort of way.
How anyone who claims to be a fan of our club, and disrespects the hard work and monies our fans have put in from the very start to help save the club, and mock them for being 'simple folk' is incomprehensible, and a slur on yourself as a person.
You have certainly not offered a different opinion in these threads, but simply a one tracked biased agenda. You are not a fan of our club. | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:17 - Oct 2 with 600 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 21:21 - Oct 1 by Garyjack |
Put you on ignore? IGNORE??? Why would i do that? I have never put anyone on ignore in 19 years of posting on this site. And under one username i may add ploppy (amongst many other usernames you have created).
Oh no, whilst i find you about as irritating as an itch on ones skin when you put on an item of new clothing without taking the tags off, i also find your daily doses of trust bashing quite humorous, albeit in a bemused sort of way.
How anyone who claims to be a fan of our club, and disrespects the hard work and monies our fans have put in from the very start to help save the club, and mock them for being 'simple folk' is incomprehensible, and a slur on yourself as a person.
You have certainly not offered a different opinion in these threads, but simply a one tracked biased agenda. You are not a fan of our club. |
GJ - You seemed exgasperated by my views on you last contributuion. The ignore button was only a polite suggestion to save you from getting vexed or god forbid any excema flare ups. This is not my intention. I have never been ploppy in name or in any other sense.
I honour the early veterans of the Trust with the buckets and their earnest cause but like many before then the humble band was seduced by the glistening millions and surcumed to slick London operators, with shiney teeth and expensive suits, bearing gifts.
The Trust had no strategy prefering to sit on their 'super high risk asset' after the value of their holding levelled off at x100 what they invested. This in was utterly clueless in itself. How can they on earth complain? Their strategy was to get to 25%. They were £4m short. Roughly £4000 per member. This was a non strategy. Asking the new US owners for a £4m gift failed perhaps not surprisingly.
They way I see it in recent years the The Trust has nothing to offer Swansea city and they could after 18 year not even cobble up £1m to help the club in crisis. They have got caught up in south Wales social narratives of equating profit with greed. They do not even know how to maximise their own cash and will never invest in Swansea city. They will have support in their legal case god knows why. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 21:52 - Oct 5 with 530 views | Garyjack |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:17 - Oct 2 by ReslovenSwan1 |
GJ - You seemed exgasperated by my views on you last contributuion. The ignore button was only a polite suggestion to save you from getting vexed or god forbid any excema flare ups. This is not my intention. I have never been ploppy in name or in any other sense.
I honour the early veterans of the Trust with the buckets and their earnest cause but like many before then the humble band was seduced by the glistening millions and surcumed to slick London operators, with shiney teeth and expensive suits, bearing gifts.
The Trust had no strategy prefering to sit on their 'super high risk asset' after the value of their holding levelled off at x100 what they invested. This in was utterly clueless in itself. How can they on earth complain? Their strategy was to get to 25%. They were £4m short. Roughly £4000 per member. This was a non strategy. Asking the new US owners for a £4m gift failed perhaps not surprisingly.
They way I see it in recent years the The Trust has nothing to offer Swansea city and they could after 18 year not even cobble up £1m to help the club in crisis. They have got caught up in south Wales social narratives of equating profit with greed. They do not even know how to maximise their own cash and will never invest in Swansea city. They will have support in their legal case god knows why. |
Bookmarked. I hope you're correct on this thread and your theories. Just one thing, there is nothing in Companies house regarding a loan from Jake Silverstein or anyone else. Strange that, as it's a legal requirement. Crack on. | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:34 - Oct 6 with 471 views | BillyChong |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 19:50 - Oct 1 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The figure quoted of a potential £12 m recovered from a £21m claim is based on past precedent on these sorts of claims where the funder of the claim wants between 40-60% of the win. An uncnfirmed leaked post on a forum suggested these figures were not far off the mark. Gains on share profits are normally taxable.
I argue that the legal action against the owners will have a direct link to the fortunes of the club. One particular aspect is the recent emergency loan given to Mr Winter, I suggest that it is likely that, if the case is opened, this loan will be immediately recovered. This means jobs going. This is my theory and is what I would do if I was them. I would not be surprised at all if discussions of this nature have not already been had. Fans cannot harm the owners without harming the club in a post Covid world. They must know this. The owners will without doubt recover loses from the Swansea adventure from Swansea assets including in future seasons the season ticket loyal suporters some of whom have been also members of the Trust at one time or another.
There are costs and costs you do not differentiate. The court costs are separate from the funders cost. The massive funders fees will come from the Trust, You have presented one side of the story regarding mediation which might not be accurate. I find it unthinkable that the club owners did not attend as required.
No one made windfall profits. All profits were generaled over 14 years of hard graft and going without. No profits were made as all surplusses were reinvested on the way up in infrastructure and players. These profits could only be recovered by selling shares.
The owners will argue that there is evidence that the Trust did not want to sell 21% of their shares in 2016. This, they will say, is given in the reality that the Trust could not even sell 5% of their shares let alone 21%, after 4 months of discussions with them in 2017. One chairman resigned over the terms qnd another in light of aggressive opposition. The terms were reported to be the same as those agreed in 2016. The theory that the Trust did not want to sell was not only given their statements but also tested out.
There has been a cash injection into the club by Mr Silverstein matched by the US owners. This was reported by the BBC and numerous publications and put on the club website. This cannot be a made up story. It is an initial loan to be converted into newly issues shares that minortiy shareholders can buy. Mr Winter will presumably confirm this. |
“.... over 14 years of hard graft and going without.” - wasn’t Jenkins paying himself £500k a year? Plus they took dividends. | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 14:39 - Oct 6 with 450 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:34 - Oct 6 by BillyChong |
“.... over 14 years of hard graft and going without.” - wasn’t Jenkins paying himself £500k a year? Plus they took dividends. |
Yep, they were very wealthy. They were to be applauded for coughing up initially but they road on the "doing it all for free bandwagon" for long enough.
They also went strangely quiet when they were paying themselves huge salaries and dividends. | | | |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 16:25 - Oct 6 with 425 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:34 - Oct 6 by BillyChong |
“.... over 14 years of hard graft and going without.” - wasn’t Jenkins paying himself £500k a year? Plus they took dividends. |
Dividends were miserable and very rare. The Trust shared in all dividends as 21% owner. In fact i remember back in the day when the Trust was unhappy that dividends were so low. Anyone with any judgement in matters of finance knew the club was a 'growth stock' not a 'income' stock. All surpluses were reinvested so there were no profits and therefore no dividends and no tax.
The only way to profit was to sell shares. Growth actually levelled off as wages started to riseto unsustainable levels. Swansea could not afford wages and transfer fees and brought in free transfers on big wages like Gomis and Ayew A first time.
The Trust stated "selling shares was not their prefered option" and now only hold the miserble dividends they were given a few years back and the negligible annual subscriptions. They siimply did not understand the financial aspects of their asset. Its called bad management. There is no indication that they have learned much. We will find out if those impressive CV s count for anything. The members appear to reward abject failure when they vote so they do not need to risk unpopularity and start cooperating with the club management. | |
| |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 17:37 - Oct 6 with 398 views | KeithHaynes |
| Do you think( money aside) Jenkins etc regret the yanks sale on 12:34 - Oct 6 by BillyChong |
“.... over 14 years of hard graft and going without.” - wasn’t Jenkins paying himself £500k a year? Plus they took dividends. |
In fairness to Jenkins the first five or six years there was no salary paid to anyone. So you are right, I don’t think anyone begrudged them this though, communication by Jenkins was always poor though. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
