| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust 14:10 - Nov 8 with 4973 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Personal View point from a third party fan.
The Trust have to opportunity to review their strategy with regard to legal action which I am strongly against. The personality clashes which led to this scenario are no long relevant with the main protagonists now with no legal role.
The Trusts strategy has run for four years since the 2016 sale. This is one of consideration of litigation. Recent reports have greatly affected the merits of this strategy. There is inflation in football and general inflation in life. If you have cash you must be aware of this phenomena. Generally prices from bygone years are not good value today because of inflation.
Recent reports indicate a £200m bid for Burnely a struggling Premier leage club. Burnley is smaller than Swansea with a smaller fan base and an older stadium and a basic game plan. 100% inflation since 2016.
Recent reports indicate a £60m bid for Derby County a struggling Championship club similar to Swansea in many ways with a weaker playing squad and no stadium owned by them if not included. 50% inflation since 2016.
The Trust will sue on the basis of the 2016 price of £21m. Becasue the Trust have managed their financial affairs poorly they cannot afford this legal action and therefore will have to pay eye watering sums for funding and risk taking. Even with a win they will walk away with around £12m to £14m before tax. This is not good business and it would without doubt lead to severe austerty at the club with redundancies for local people and the almost inevitable closure of the academy. The criteria for carrying out legal action no longer apply. Rampant asset stripping has not occured and the team is stronger not weaker than two seasons ago.
If you assume the club is equitable with Derby County at £60m. 21% of £60m gives a valuation of £12.6m. This has inflated from around £8m in 2016. This means legal action at a 2016 price would only see a mark up of only £1.4m on today's Championship price after deductions and actually even less if costs are greater than anticipated (dealing with counter suing or appeals for example).
If Swansea returned to the Premier league which might be a 15-20% chance the Trust s valuation would be 21% of £200m which is a staggering £42m for a £200k investment. A 210 times mark up.
If the club returns to the Premier League the Trust will regret taking legal action big time. I call on their leaders to come to a settlement with the club owners before they drop a major financial ricket. Inflation kills all that do not take it seriously.
|  |
| |  |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:45 - Nov 10 with 706 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 16:40 - Nov 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
It is a question of relationships. Most in business especially in a small cities recognise the benefits of good relations. Legal action can only lead to bad relations even if unsucessful.
The saviours of Swansea city in 2002 thought it a good idea to involve the fans in the ownership team. The set up was to share the benefit for the investors and the fans body.
The man that ran the club for 15 years or so, had 14 sucessful years and one bad one. He increased the asset value of the Trust x100 (sensational returns) and put Americans with cash on table in front of them 4 months before the sale was concluded. No agreement was made and internal strife within the Trust led to the buyer walking away. This is the reason they gave.
Legal action will demonstrate that setting up the Trust was bad call. They have not come up to expectation. Trusts are set up for failure and and fan cash invlovement with low achievement like Exeter City. Swansea fans could not cope with success and looked to conflict for comfort and self justification.
. |
- We're so far down the line now, going to court or not to me would make little difference in any relationship anyway.
- you've failed to provide any evidence for this 4 months window you've only just brought up from very recently. If this were true I can't see a QC saying they would have a case. Its a claim that completely goes against the whole crux of case. We know the Americans / Huw were dishonest during the sale so I know who I'd believe.
- More anti trust nonsense in that last paragraph. They've so far achieved exactly what they were set up to do. Legal action with a mandate from the members is conclusive proof of this.
Why won't you answer my question then? You keep dodging it. [Post edited 10 Nov 2020 17:51]
|  |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:57 - Nov 10 with 698 views | BillyChong |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:44 - Nov 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The £8m is the money the London agencies will take from the legal process in the event of a win. They may have talked themselves into a fee even if they lose if they are not 100% confident on the case , which would not surprise me at all. The Trust board might be tempted to accept this to save face having already wasted £150,000 in my eyes.
I believe the funders will want insurance against losing in court. £1.5 m in legal fees if the lose for example and the US legal costs gulp . Remember possibly court debutants will be going into court to bat for them. This looks like a big risk to me. The Trust only have £800k. They can only therefore pay these fees in shares. Check it out yourself you are a member. Give your man a ring.
While you are at it put the funders terms on here for transparency. I am only speculating. |
Where is the concrete evidence that the London agencies will take £8m? You talk a lot of waffle but back it up with no evidence. The Donald Trump of the forum. |  | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 18:06 - Nov 10 with 691 views | BillyChong |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:43 - Nov 9 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The sellers were asked in 2016 if they wanted to sell their shares. Thay all said YES. The Americans then asked the Trust later and they gave no reply. This was taken as a NO.
Its as simple as that. They were given a second chance in 2017 but blew that as well.
The Trust needed to sell then as they holding was classed as "very high risk" and that was the common sense thing to do, and the advice they woud have been given by almost all financial advisers.
I have presented a compelling case for not taking legal action. The Trust can put their shares up for sale and make huge profits in the Premier league down the line with or without consent of the Americans who might make an offer themselves. Alternatively they could agree a drag on or tag on agreements.
The QC said the Trust had a good case to win in curt but that was a 'last resort'. Ian Walsh would make a 'good case' for Swansea getting promoted. Swings and roundabouts. Personally I think the Trust should play its chance on grass not the court room
Big investors like Pension funds rarely want to have a controlling interest. You are speculating outside you pay grade again. The Russian investor in Arsenal has no clout but is well placed to takeover when the inciumbant wants to sell up, He is building a stake.
I am very keen the Trust do not get a bad deal while at the same time harming the club and club staff to enrich vested intersts not related to the club. I do not much care for the old Trust but there has been a new broom. Big increases in share prices today with good news on potential vaccines. |
What has Ian Walsh got to do with it? | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 18:16 - Nov 10 with 684 views | BillyChong |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:12 - Nov 9 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Crickey this is fun. I have to teach the membership of this forum on basic sensible financial management. I am such a nice bloke I even suggested a 'Financial Q and A' guest page on this great forum.
The Ft 100 is not a massive gamble. It goes up and down but in general it goes up and is a safer and better investment than your house even with buy to rent. That is a fact.
The biggest gamble of all in investment is struggling small football teams where Swansea city have resided for some time. Its boom or bust for them worse the gold mining stocks. As it happens Swansea city was boom not bust The Trust had a 100x mark up a £20m profit but did not sell despite encouragement. HJ played an absolute blinder for 14 years and is loved by the other shareholders. The Trust prefered not to sell and said so. Bad call.
The famility running Stoke city are £180m in debt and stll below Swansea in the league. That how they outbid Swansea for Joe Allen. They borrowed the money.
The level of financial naiivity is absolutely staggering to me. |
Stoke borrow money in the same way as our owners borrow money. Don’t they owe at least £10m to financial institutions? Also, as you are so keen on interest rates if I recall correctly the club didn’t lend on the best deal. | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:23 - Nov 10 with 663 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 18:06 - Nov 10 by BillyChong |
What has Ian Walsh got to do with it? |
The QC said The Trust have a GOOD CASE based on informtion given to him by the Trust. The QC is an expert in n Law. This would see the Trust get £12-13m.
Ian Walsh is a football pundit and an expert on football. He might say for argments case . Swansea city have a GOOD CASE for being promoted to the Premier leagues. In this case they would have decent relations with the club and their valuation would be £42m based onthe Burnley figure.
I say the trust should takeit chances on the football field not in the court. The members know far more about that. Ian is an example of a pundit that follows Swansea.
The estimated legal cost is an estimated figure by me. If you have a more accurte figure please provide it.
[Post edited 10 Nov 2020 19:26]
| |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:35 - Nov 10 with 651 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:23 - Nov 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC said The Trust have a GOOD CASE based on informtion given to him by the Trust. The QC is an expert in n Law. This would see the Trust get £12-13m.
Ian Walsh is a football pundit and an expert on football. He might say for argments case . Swansea city have a GOOD CASE for being promoted to the Premier leagues. In this case they would have decent relations with the club and their valuation would be £42m based onthe Burnley figure.
I say the trust should takeit chances on the football field not in the court. The members know far more about that. Ian is an example of a pundit that follows Swansea.
The estimated legal cost is an estimated figure by me. If you have a more accurte figure please provide it.
[Post edited 10 Nov 2020 19:26]
|
Has Ian Walsh made a good case for us getting promoted then? | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:42 - Nov 10 with 648 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:45 - Nov 10 by Chief |
- We're so far down the line now, going to court or not to me would make little difference in any relationship anyway.
- you've failed to provide any evidence for this 4 months window you've only just brought up from very recently. If this were true I can't see a QC saying they would have a case. Its a claim that completely goes against the whole crux of case. We know the Americans / Huw were dishonest during the sale so I know who I'd believe.
- More anti trust nonsense in that last paragraph. They've so far achieved exactly what they were set up to do. Legal action with a mandate from the members is conclusive proof of this.
Why won't you answer my question then? You keep dodging it. [Post edited 10 Nov 2020 17:51]
|
Here is the fans update from October 2016 outlining the issues of that Summer.
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/2 | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:58 - Nov 10 with 636 views | Chief |
OK thanks. That is the version of events that is pretty consistent with everyone's else's view apart from yours. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:39 - Nov 10 with 616 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:58 - Nov 10 by Chief |
OK thanks. That is the version of events that is pretty consistent with everyone's else's view apart from yours. |
Was there a window for the Trust to make a case to be invloved in the sale before it was completed ? Yes there was. The period between March when they first knew of the sale talks and July 2016 when the window was closed.
At this time the Trust leadership wanted to increase their holding not reduce it. As you will have read they asked for a "donation" of around 4% of the shares to give them the 25% protection. (aproximalty £4m).
Did they wnat to sell at this time? The statement said this.
"I will say that at NO point has the Trust ever said that we will never, under any circumstances, sell our stake in the football club. It is fair to say that it is not our preferred option and goes against one of the stated aims of the Supporters Trust, which is to maintain a stake in the football club." | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Nov 10 with 613 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:39 - Nov 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Was there a window for the Trust to make a case to be invloved in the sale before it was completed ? Yes there was. The period between March when they first knew of the sale talks and July 2016 when the window was closed.
At this time the Trust leadership wanted to increase their holding not reduce it. As you will have read they asked for a "donation" of around 4% of the shares to give them the 25% protection. (aproximalty £4m).
Did they wnat to sell at this time? The statement said this.
"I will say that at NO point has the Trust ever said that we will never, under any circumstances, sell our stake in the football club. It is fair to say that it is not our preferred option and goes against one of the stated aims of the Supporters Trust, which is to maintain a stake in the football club." |
- No, it's clearly stated that the sale was too far along for the trust to be involved.
- yes the 25% figure would have been nice. It was wise of them to at least explore that possibility.
- whether they openly wanted to sell or not isn't really relevant - the fact that weren't given the chance to even consider it&have a bid is.
- If the sell outs / Americans were confident that the didn't want to sell, why wouldn't they have just extended the trust a bid? That way it would have satisfied their legal and moral obligations&buy your reckoning the trust would have rejected the offer&kept their share. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:05 - Nov 10 with 611 views | NotLoyal |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Nov 10 by Chief |
- No, it's clearly stated that the sale was too far along for the trust to be involved.
- yes the 25% figure would have been nice. It was wise of them to at least explore that possibility.
- whether they openly wanted to sell or not isn't really relevant - the fact that weren't given the chance to even consider it&have a bid is.
- If the sell outs / Americans were confident that the didn't want to sell, why wouldn't they have just extended the trust a bid? That way it would have satisfied their legal and moral obligations&buy your reckoning the trust would have rejected the offer&kept their share. |
You are even more patient than Dr P, and that's really more patient than a really patient thing. |  |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:05 - Nov 11 with 582 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:52 - Nov 10 by Chief |
- No, it's clearly stated that the sale was too far along for the trust to be involved.
- yes the 25% figure would have been nice. It was wise of them to at least explore that possibility.
- whether they openly wanted to sell or not isn't really relevant - the fact that weren't given the chance to even consider it&have a bid is.
- If the sell outs / Americans were confident that the didn't want to sell, why wouldn't they have just extended the trust a bid? That way it would have satisfied their legal and moral obligations&buy your reckoning the trust would have rejected the offer&kept their share. |
Chief You stated the following.
"you'll have to find a link for that Western Mail story about this 4 month window. If that is true then there's little basis for the trusts case&QC wouldn't have said it was a good case. So that seems skeptical to me. Also strange that you've never brought that up until now given its importance."
I provided a Trust statement confirming they knew of the sale in March 2016. The sale was not closed until July 2016. They wanted more share not less accordng to this statement. That was their failed strategy. Get to 25% for a free £4m. It didnt work. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:20 - Nov 11 with 579 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:05 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Chief You stated the following.
"you'll have to find a link for that Western Mail story about this 4 month window. If that is true then there's little basis for the trusts case&QC wouldn't have said it was a good case. So that seems skeptical to me. Also strange that you've never brought that up until now given its importance."
I provided a Trust statement confirming they knew of the sale in March 2016. The sale was not closed until July 2016. They wanted more share not less accordng to this statement. That was their failed strategy. Get to 25% for a free £4m. It didnt work. |
- You stated it as if there was some sort of 4 month legal window that the trust could have inserted themselves into that would have triggered the sale of their shares.
- This, as the article suggests is not the case. The Americans while they said they were open to the idea didn't make any bids for the shares during the time.
- While in an ideal world the trust would have wanted additional shares totalling at least 25% to help protect their position, this does not mean they should have been excluded from the share sale.
Ultimately, they should have received a bid the same time and for the same terms as the sell outs did. We know that didn't happen. The Americans assuming (guessing) the trust didn't want to sell so didn't bother bidding isn't good enough. [Post edited 11 Nov 2020 11:30]
| |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:48 - Nov 11 with 572 views | chad |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 19:23 - Nov 10 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The QC said The Trust have a GOOD CASE based on informtion given to him by the Trust. The QC is an expert in n Law. This would see the Trust get £12-13m.
Ian Walsh is a football pundit and an expert on football. He might say for argments case . Swansea city have a GOOD CASE for being promoted to the Premier leagues. In this case they would have decent relations with the club and their valuation would be £42m based onthe Burnley figure.
I say the trust should takeit chances on the football field not in the court. The members know far more about that. Ian is an example of a pundit that follows Swansea.
The estimated legal cost is an estimated figure by me. If you have a more accurte figure please provide it.
[Post edited 10 Nov 2020 19:26]
|
Actually the QC said we had a STRONG CASE
Do you think a QC would risk their considerable and vital reputation to say we had a STRONG CASE without solid evidence.
In regard to the figures you are just making things up and presenting them as facts, but far from unusual for you.
The usual outcome of a successful case would be to force the perpetrators to buy us out at the value at the time, circa £21m. Given their behaviour and repeated opportunities they have been given to resolve this (including an agreement, which despite being most favourable to them, they unilaterally withdrew from) it is most likely that the perpetrators will be required to pay both their own costs and ours.
As said the new owners have made it clear they have lots of money, I am surprised they are not biting the Trust’s hand off to buy for circa £21m to resolve this case, if it is such a sound investment as you say. Strange that isn’t it?
They would also have the advantage of not being effectively powerless within the club, nor hostage to fortune as the Trust would be, with the ongoing legal fees required to try and protect themselves against an ongoing toxic relationship caused by the repeated actions of the new majority owners. It puts one in mind of an abusive relationship, where their repeated unacceptable behaviour to the Trust is followed by remorseful regret, only to repeat similar behaviour.
The Court case is all about the behaviour and position the perpetrators put us in, in relation to the sale, and their behaviour since when we were trying to resolve the matter.
Clicity clack, clickity clack, clickity clack [Post edited 11 Nov 2020 11:50]
|  | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:06 - Nov 11 with 567 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:20 - Nov 11 by Chief |
- You stated it as if there was some sort of 4 month legal window that the trust could have inserted themselves into that would have triggered the sale of their shares.
- This, as the article suggests is not the case. The Americans while they said they were open to the idea didn't make any bids for the shares during the time.
- While in an ideal world the trust would have wanted additional shares totalling at least 25% to help protect their position, this does not mean they should have been excluded from the share sale.
Ultimately, they should have received a bid the same time and for the same terms as the sell outs did. We know that didn't happen. The Americans assuming (guessing) the trust didn't want to sell so didn't bother bidding isn't good enough. [Post edited 11 Nov 2020 11:30]
|
Why should they have recieved a bid at the same time? There was no tag on agreement as far as I know. They said they prefered not to sell in writing. Their strategy (crazy as it was) was to get to 25%, and selling was against ther principles.
In order to accomodate the Trust an offer was made in principle for 50% of their shares but 18 months later talks collapsed as activists objected to a deal. This perhaps confirmed these principles. It all seems fairly clear to me. They did not sell because they did not want to.
If the shareholder agreement was valid they could have issued a legal writ to the sellers to be included in the sale or stop the sale. They prefered not to do this.
The Trust mves like a super tanker and does not belong on the board of a vibrant club like Swansea where it just creates anger and frustration. I have symapthy with those who make the decsions. The club needs to get thing done and done quickly. A 12 month delay would have seen the buyer walk away.
Compartmentalising the Trust for later inclusion was the pragmatic and reasonable approach in my eyes. It would not please the Trust but was probably the only practical way of proceeeding. The sellers had run their course after 14 years of sucess against the prevailing wind. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:24 - Nov 11 with 558 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:48 - Nov 11 by chad |
Actually the QC said we had a STRONG CASE
Do you think a QC would risk their considerable and vital reputation to say we had a STRONG CASE without solid evidence.
In regard to the figures you are just making things up and presenting them as facts, but far from unusual for you.
The usual outcome of a successful case would be to force the perpetrators to buy us out at the value at the time, circa £21m. Given their behaviour and repeated opportunities they have been given to resolve this (including an agreement, which despite being most favourable to them, they unilaterally withdrew from) it is most likely that the perpetrators will be required to pay both their own costs and ours.
As said the new owners have made it clear they have lots of money, I am surprised they are not biting the Trust’s hand off to buy for circa £21m to resolve this case, if it is such a sound investment as you say. Strange that isn’t it?
They would also have the advantage of not being effectively powerless within the club, nor hostage to fortune as the Trust would be, with the ongoing legal fees required to try and protect themselves against an ongoing toxic relationship caused by the repeated actions of the new majority owners. It puts one in mind of an abusive relationship, where their repeated unacceptable behaviour to the Trust is followed by remorseful regret, only to repeat similar behaviour.
The Court case is all about the behaviour and position the perpetrators put us in, in relation to the sale, and their behaviour since when we were trying to resolve the matter.
Clicity clack, clickity clack, clickity clack [Post edited 11 Nov 2020 11:50]
|
The owners would have serious difficulty in finfding £21m+ and this would have bad effects for the club. Things like closing the academy and job redundances for valued staff at a difficult time for everyone. The Trust themselves agreed this saying
"We are also conscious that any legal action would create uncertainty, not just in terms of its success, but also our relationship with the new owner and destabilising the football club. This remains a last resort,"
Legal action is not the last resort because of inflation which is the purpose off my post. The Trust would recieve little more for their shares after litigaion than what the shares are valued at now based on the Derby valuation. Legal action £13-14m . Championship vlution £12m, A better 'resort' is a clear run at promotion upside being a valuation of £42m based on the Burnley valuation more than three times the legal valuation after deductions.
There is it a reported 'strong' legal case but there is also a 'strong' case for a promotion and 3x the potential returns with all the money staying in Swansea and goodwill in the boardroom. Promotion after the destabilising effects of legal action admitted by the Trust is far less likely. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:37 - Nov 11 with 557 views | chad |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:24 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The owners would have serious difficulty in finfding £21m+ and this would have bad effects for the club. Things like closing the academy and job redundances for valued staff at a difficult time for everyone. The Trust themselves agreed this saying
"We are also conscious that any legal action would create uncertainty, not just in terms of its success, but also our relationship with the new owner and destabilising the football club. This remains a last resort,"
Legal action is not the last resort because of inflation which is the purpose off my post. The Trust would recieve little more for their shares after litigaion than what the shares are valued at now based on the Derby valuation. Legal action £13-14m . Championship vlution £12m, A better 'resort' is a clear run at promotion upside being a valuation of £42m based on the Burnley valuation more than three times the legal valuation after deductions.
There is it a reported 'strong' legal case but there is also a 'strong' case for a promotion and 3x the potential returns with all the money staying in Swansea and goodwill in the boardroom. Promotion after the destabilising effects of legal action admitted by the Trust is far less likely. |
Not so, at that meeting where they made there recorded admissions, it was made clear this was pin money to them.
As for the rest irrelevant as I explained, and you are still presenting made up figures as fact | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:59 - Nov 11 with 553 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:37 - Nov 11 by chad |
Not so, at that meeting where they made there recorded admissions, it was made clear this was pin money to them.
As for the rest irrelevant as I explained, and you are still presenting made up figures as fact |
Put your figures on the table Chad. How much will legal action cost for a win and a loss?.
Somebody must know the terms. We non members desrerve to know. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 13:04 - Nov 11 with 550 views | chad |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:59 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Put your figures on the table Chad. How much will legal action cost for a win and a loss?.
Somebody must know the terms. We non members desrerve to know. |
But you already know all the terms don’t you. You keep telling us.
Oh sorry forgot all made up | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 13:39 - Nov 11 with 539 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:06 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Why should they have recieved a bid at the same time? There was no tag on agreement as far as I know. They said they prefered not to sell in writing. Their strategy (crazy as it was) was to get to 25%, and selling was against ther principles.
In order to accomodate the Trust an offer was made in principle for 50% of their shares but 18 months later talks collapsed as activists objected to a deal. This perhaps confirmed these principles. It all seems fairly clear to me. They did not sell because they did not want to.
If the shareholder agreement was valid they could have issued a legal writ to the sellers to be included in the sale or stop the sale. They prefered not to do this.
The Trust mves like a super tanker and does not belong on the board of a vibrant club like Swansea where it just creates anger and frustration. I have symapthy with those who make the decsions. The club needs to get thing done and done quickly. A 12 month delay would have seen the buyer walk away.
Compartmentalising the Trust for later inclusion was the pragmatic and reasonable approach in my eyes. It would not please the Trust but was probably the only practical way of proceeeding. The sellers had run their course after 14 years of sucess against the prevailing wind. |
- Why should they have had a bid at the same time? That's the whole crux of the case. The whole reason its happening and a QC stated the trust had a good case. Besides legalities, how about courtesy?
- Again, preferably the trust obviously wouldn't want to sell. But that's not the point. The Americans not bidding on the basis of assumption is not acceptable. The article also states the trust have never said that they would never sell shares. So there was always a possibility they would have.
- We do not know the terms of these though do we? And also why only for half? And they rescinded their offer too.
- This whole issue has come about because of the Americans reluctance to buy the Trusts shares by the way.
- Well Huw Jenkins went to the trouble of appointing legal representation to attempt to dissolve the share holders agreement so he is obviously aware of its importance. I'm not an expert on writs so not sure if that was a possible avenue they could have gone down.
- More slurs here. If you don't think they should be on the board, you should be happy with legal action then. But this is the conflict and makes me question your motives for this constant crusade of yours.
- Later inclusion into what? | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:03 - Nov 11 with 530 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:24 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
The owners would have serious difficulty in finfding £21m+ and this would have bad effects for the club. Things like closing the academy and job redundances for valued staff at a difficult time for everyone. The Trust themselves agreed this saying
"We are also conscious that any legal action would create uncertainty, not just in terms of its success, but also our relationship with the new owner and destabilising the football club. This remains a last resort,"
Legal action is not the last resort because of inflation which is the purpose off my post. The Trust would recieve little more for their shares after litigaion than what the shares are valued at now based on the Derby valuation. Legal action £13-14m . Championship vlution £12m, A better 'resort' is a clear run at promotion upside being a valuation of £42m based on the Burnley valuation more than three times the legal valuation after deductions.
There is it a reported 'strong' legal case but there is also a 'strong' case for a promotion and 3x the potential returns with all the money staying in Swansea and goodwill in the boardroom. Promotion after the destabilising effects of legal action admitted by the Trust is far less likely. |
- The owners should have thought of that. As 'experienced', businessmen proficient in this field they should have known that having to pay the £21mill was a possibility. And they do, they are aware of it. Why don't you have faith in them?
- Huge conflation next which I won't overlook - there is nothing in that quote from the trust saying they'd know or be aware that things such as losing the academy or job losses would be a result of legal action. Their quote is a huge leap from you have conveniently tried twisting it towards.
- Losing the academy (they have already downgraded it mind) and job losses and blaming it on the legal action is completely unacceptable and unjustified. You won't say it, but it's a fact that the £21 million the Americans would have to pay will have to come from their own bank accounts - not the football clubs. The current owners have only put a relatively small loan in to the club so far and not taken anything (so we're told) out yet so there's little evidence that they would start after legal action. It would also be terrible business for them to handicap an asset they own too and reduce the chances of them selling and getting their money back or taking dividends.
Why don't you have faith in them?
- Inflation is not a viable option without promotion or a buyer. Neither has occurred.
- The trusts case in court in a two horse race is far stronger than any case (that no pundit in reality - not even Ian Walsh lol) has or will make about us getting promoted after 11 games.
- destabilising at the moment is complete red herring although I can see why people like are setting this up as a weapon against the trust. We aren't going down and there are no fans in the stadium so the players can't have the excuse of being in a 'toxic' atmosphere which was nonsense anyway. They'll still get their payslips and moves to bigger clubs if they perform well whether legal occurs or not. | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:05 - Nov 11 with 528 views | Chief |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:59 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Put your figures on the table Chad. How much will legal action cost for a win and a loss?.
Somebody must know the terms. We non members desrerve to know. |
Would you think it good business sense for the Americans to release how much budget they have set aside for legal costs or how much they are willing to pay? | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:19 - Nov 11 with 523 views | Chief |
And you're still ducking my questions.
In the event of a trust win, do you think the Americans would / could go after the sell outs?
Ie selling them shares under false pretences etc? | |
| |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:09 - Nov 11 with 495 views | YrAlarch |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:59 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Put your figures on the table Chad. How much will legal action cost for a win and a loss?.
Somebody must know the terms. We non members desrerve to know. |
Why do you, as a non member, deserve to know?
There again, why don't you become a member? | | | |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 18:09 - Nov 11 with 480 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 14:19 - Nov 11 by Chief |
And you're still ducking my questions.
In the event of a trust win, do you think the Americans would / could go after the sell outs?
Ie selling them shares under false pretences etc? |
Thinking about it the remaining board would be paying £21m for a bone fide £12m asset. So they would be looking for about the £9m excess off the club. They understand the concept of inflation.
This excess £9m bill will be paid for by the fans players and and workers of Swansea city ultimately. The Trust will be getting the current 'Championship price' for their shares taking into consideration costs and inflation. The remaning shareholders would work together to come to an agreed solution I would think, in the knowledge that premier league prices are a lot higher thn in 2016. [Post edited 11 Nov 2020 18:23]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
