By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
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 18:09 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1
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]
- Wow so you think that Morgan and Jenkins are going to chip in to pay the bill in the event of a trust win in court? -- The club has excess money!? - How are those two in the same boat as the Americans? - In your own words "no sale at such a mark up is ever a bad deal". - I don't see how that demonstrates how the Americans understand inflation? Not that its relevant, its just another random dig at the trust. - How will it be paid by the players?
You don't have come out with some pearlers mind. Wild claims.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 18:30 - Nov 11 by Chief
- Wow so you think that Morgan and Jenkins are going to chip in to pay the bill in the event of a trust win in court? -- The club has excess money!? - How are those two in the same boat as the Americans? - In your own words "no sale at such a mark up is ever a bad deal". - I don't see how that demonstrates how the Americans understand inflation? Not that its relevant, its just another random dig at the trust. - How will it be paid by the players?
You don't have come out with some pearlers mind. Wild claims.
I am not an expert but I suspect the bill will go to the current owners of Swansea city and not those that had left.
The shares are worth £12m on todays market so buying the new shares at that price is no great inconvenience and a good long term investment. This would cost the local investors £1.2m for their 10% share. The other £900k excess could be classed as 'recoverable from the football club'.
The US people would need to buy 90% of the shares at £10.8m at the Championship market price and borrow £8.2m to pay off the rest. I would imagine that to be fair to the passive US investors the active US investors they would pay back the loan from special dividends from the club after the sale of Cabango or Grimes for example. They would explain to their investors that the Trust did not believe in the club and declined to invest and they were better off wthout them.
Winters and his team could be directed to generate profits of £3m per season for three seasons by whatever means possible with season ticket hikes to be included for older season ticket holders. The academy would be at serious risk, saving £2m per season. The club could opt to close the academy to retain a key player. A lot would depend on the players financial demands and contract situation. Some players valued by Cooper could be eased out of the club to hit these targets.
The US ownership team are highly experience in leveraged assets and a whole array of corporate mechanisms I am not familair with. The Football authorities themselves might struggle. That could see the whole £21m paid for by the club in long term debts in some complex form or another. New investors could pay the debt with use of dervtives and futures market which I do not fully understand.
I get a strong sense of vengence drven by Welsh parochial jealousy. It is a sight to behold and not something the US people can understand. If you think the action is going to give the club ownership any long term harm you are deluded. These are slick operators and will not give up in a dog fight. They know that football inflation is on their side.
If the club gets back to the PL after legal action the Trust will be ridiculed for their lack of faith and never allowed back. The Trust somewhere over the last 18 years went from saviours to passengers. The members are to blame at the end of the day.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 22:01 - Nov 11 by ReslovenSwan1
I am not an expert but I suspect the bill will go to the current owners of Swansea city and not those that had left.
The shares are worth £12m on todays market so buying the new shares at that price is no great inconvenience and a good long term investment. This would cost the local investors £1.2m for their 10% share. The other £900k excess could be classed as 'recoverable from the football club'.
The US people would need to buy 90% of the shares at £10.8m at the Championship market price and borrow £8.2m to pay off the rest. I would imagine that to be fair to the passive US investors the active US investors they would pay back the loan from special dividends from the club after the sale of Cabango or Grimes for example. They would explain to their investors that the Trust did not believe in the club and declined to invest and they were better off wthout them.
Winters and his team could be directed to generate profits of £3m per season for three seasons by whatever means possible with season ticket hikes to be included for older season ticket holders. The academy would be at serious risk, saving £2m per season. The club could opt to close the academy to retain a key player. A lot would depend on the players financial demands and contract situation. Some players valued by Cooper could be eased out of the club to hit these targets.
The US ownership team are highly experience in leveraged assets and a whole array of corporate mechanisms I am not familair with. The Football authorities themselves might struggle. That could see the whole £21m paid for by the club in long term debts in some complex form or another. New investors could pay the debt with use of dervtives and futures market which I do not fully understand.
I get a strong sense of vengence drven by Welsh parochial jealousy. It is a sight to behold and not something the US people can understand. If you think the action is going to give the club ownership any long term harm you are deluded. These are slick operators and will not give up in a dog fight. They know that football inflation is on their side.
If the club gets back to the PL after legal action the Trust will be ridiculed for their lack of faith and never allowed back. The Trust somewhere over the last 18 years went from saviours to passengers. The members are to blame at the end of the day.
- Only yesterday you said the Americans would find it very difficult to find £21mill. Now you say its no great inconvenience? - I cant understand why you think MM&HJ are going to help pay when they won't be ownong these shares. - why again are you pretending as if this money to pay for the shares will come directly out of the football club? - are you forgetting too that the shares would cost the Americans £21mill? Not this weird £12mill you keep quoting for some reason? - Doesn't a club have to be making money for dividends to be taken out? None have been taken up until now & we've been told we're not on a great financial footing - so how is this magically going to start happening after legal action? These dividends would also mean MM and HJ getting cash. So your comments about them sort of chipping in or being liable for 10% of the bill are just baffling. - No idea what the relevance is of them having to explain to their other investors that the trust declined to invest? Have they even been asked to? Didn't believe in the club? You've just described a scenario whereby the Americans would sell one off saleable assets purely to fill their own pockets ffs. - Scaremongering in the next paragraph. Can they really do that while taking out a dividend? Plus they've already got £70mill to find and they haven't started these punitive measures yet (well they kind of have) so why now. - If they weaken us by selling players and pocketing the cash how do they hope to get back their £70mill then? They won't get that selling a league 1 club. - Ah the last paragraph is you hedging your bets big style. Because you couldn't then say that the trust caused a poor season or blew the promotion push. Setting yourself up to give them another stick to hit them with. But I'll repeat your own words "no sale with that much of a mark up is ever a bad deal"
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 01:06 - Nov 12 by Brynmill_Jack
This site is on the verge of becoming unreadable again. Bore off Resolven or whoever you are
I am the only one putting estimated figures to this ludricrous legal action. I am the only one discussing post legal action outcomes. I am the only one exposing the pathetic interest rates the Trust are getting on their desposits 0.15%. Wasting around £8,000 per year in lost interest . I am the only one explaining the validity of legal action has be compromised by inflation. I am the only explaining that after legal action the Trust will after deductions effectivley be paid Championship rates for their shares.
No one else has done this. There is an ignore button if you do not want to read these unpalatable facts.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:09 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
I am the only one putting estimated figures to this ludricrous legal action. I am the only one discussing post legal action outcomes. I am the only one exposing the pathetic interest rates the Trust are getting on their desposits 0.15%. Wasting around £8,000 per year in lost interest . I am the only one explaining the validity of legal action has be compromised by inflation. I am the only explaining that after legal action the Trust will after deductions effectivley be paid Championship rates for their shares.
No one else has done this. There is an ignore button if you do not want to read these unpalatable facts.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:09 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
I am the only one putting estimated figures to this ludricrous legal action. I am the only one discussing post legal action outcomes. I am the only one exposing the pathetic interest rates the Trust are getting on their desposits 0.15%. Wasting around £8,000 per year in lost interest . I am the only one explaining the validity of legal action has be compromised by inflation. I am the only explaining that after legal action the Trust will after deductions effectivley be paid Championship rates for their shares.
No one else has done this. There is an ignore button if you do not want to read these unpalatable facts.
- Estimated is the key word. And also can't be ludicrous - in your own words "a sale of shares with a mark up of that size can never be a bad deal". - I've also discussed and called out your hysterical post legal action outcomes for being illogical. - What do whatever the trust are allegedly receiving in interest (did you make up that figure too?) have to do with anything? - it's not compromised by inflation at all - it could be a consideration but ultimately a hypothetical, unlikely prospect. Not should inflation excuse the actions of the Americans / sell outs. - Again you have no idea of what fees will be paid. - You haven't produced any facts!
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:09 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
I am the only one putting estimated figures to this ludricrous legal action. I am the only one discussing post legal action outcomes. I am the only one exposing the pathetic interest rates the Trust are getting on their desposits 0.15%. Wasting around £8,000 per year in lost interest . I am the only one explaining the validity of legal action has be compromised by inflation. I am the only explaining that after legal action the Trust will after deductions effectivley be paid Championship rates for their shares.
No one else has done this. There is an ignore button if you do not want to read these unpalatable facts.
Sorry, can’t put you on ignore now Trumpy boy has gone. I’ve got this weird obsession with reading bollocks and you fit the bill perfectly. Keep it up mush.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 07:08 - Nov 12 by Chief
- Only yesterday you said the Americans would find it very difficult to find £21mill. Now you say its no great inconvenience? - I cant understand why you think MM&HJ are going to help pay when they won't be ownong these shares. - why again are you pretending as if this money to pay for the shares will come directly out of the football club? - are you forgetting too that the shares would cost the Americans £21mill? Not this weird £12mill you keep quoting for some reason? - Doesn't a club have to be making money for dividends to be taken out? None have been taken up until now & we've been told we're not on a great financial footing - so how is this magically going to start happening after legal action? These dividends would also mean MM and HJ getting cash. So your comments about them sort of chipping in or being liable for 10% of the bill are just baffling. - No idea what the relevance is of them having to explain to their other investors that the trust declined to invest? Have they even been asked to? Didn't believe in the club? You've just described a scenario whereby the Americans would sell one off saleable assets purely to fill their own pockets ffs. - Scaremongering in the next paragraph. Can they really do that while taking out a dividend? Plus they've already got £70mill to find and they haven't started these punitive measures yet (well they kind of have) so why now. - If they weaken us by selling players and pocketing the cash how do they hope to get back their £70mill then? They won't get that selling a league 1 club. - Ah the last paragraph is you hedging your bets big style. Because you couldn't then say that the trust caused a poor season or blew the promotion push. Setting yourself up to give them another stick to hit them with. But I'll repeat your own words "no sale with that much of a mark up is ever a bad deal"
I am not a school teacher. £21m is big money but they will be using it to buy shares at the 'current market rate' which they can justify to their business partners. The excess £9m they will borow and pay off when Cabango or the lastest prodigy is sold.
The claim, I imagine would be against all the existing shareholders pro rata. So the local shareholder would have to contribute unless agreed otherwise. They unlike the Trust are not trying to run away.
The US people do not want to lumber ther partners with legal costs. The legal excess costs will therefore be covered by a loan and paid of by selling a player or other ecomonies like redundancies and closing the academy which Mr Winter will arrange.
£12m is the 'current market value' for the club. This is not wierd. Derby County is similar to Swansea and going for £60m. 21% of £60m is £12.6m. So £12m is a reasonable estimate.
The club is now on an even footing. Winters can general profits easily by selling players earlier than normal and save £2m pa by closing or mothballing the academy.
The local owners are 10% owners and have 10% of the liability. If they contribute to ths share purchase they will get 10% of the dividends to cover their legal fees.
The Trust were reportedly asked to invest in the 2017 talks as a condition of the US people buying 50% of the Trusts shares. Remember the stadium expansion? The good old boys objected to this, it was reported by the US people. This was one of the sticking points. This is why I consider they are no use to the club.
They have made millions but declined to contribute anything cback into to the club. The request for a £4m donation was instructive in understanding their 'dependency' mindset which is prevalent in some sections of south Wales.
Selling a player is not to fill their pockets. Selling a player is to pay of the Trust's legal costs. If you want to believe the Trusts costs will have no effect on the running of the club you are deluded. I believe there will be significant redundancies of local hard working people as a result of a trust win in court. Judging by reactions members do not give a fig.
I wonder where you get the "they already have £70m to find" comment from? . What are you talking about? You seem to be assuming they borrowed money to buy the club. This is almost certainly not true.
After the Trust are gone the US people will own 90% of club worth £60m. They will have paid £78m for it. If the club get back to the PL the club will be worth £200m. Inflation affect both the the valuations and it is going upwards. The Trusts legal action weakens the clubs chances of promotion. This is why I am against legal action.
How Trust members believe their action is beneficial to the club in the long term beggars belief. They have not come up to expectations.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 11:48 - Nov 12 by scruffyjack
Sorry, can’t put you on ignore now Trumpy boy has gone. I’ve got this weird obsession with reading bollocks and you fit the bill perfectly. Keep it up mush.
Thank you kindly. I am glad you read my posts. What you think of them will change over time as you sort out your thoughts and judgements and the reality sinks in. I have been reading these forums for a decade and they tend to enhance prejudices and squash free thinking.
Uses of the word 'Yankee' 'sellout' 'Judas' 'pieces of silver' 'fill their pockets' are straight out of the Iranain ministry of information webpage. Propoganda takes many forms.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:01 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
I am not a school teacher. £21m is big money but they will be using it to buy shares at the 'current market rate' which they can justify to their business partners. The excess £9m they will borow and pay off when Cabango or the lastest prodigy is sold.
The claim, I imagine would be against all the existing shareholders pro rata. So the local shareholder would have to contribute unless agreed otherwise. They unlike the Trust are not trying to run away.
The US people do not want to lumber ther partners with legal costs. The legal excess costs will therefore be covered by a loan and paid of by selling a player or other ecomonies like redundancies and closing the academy which Mr Winter will arrange.
£12m is the 'current market value' for the club. This is not wierd. Derby County is similar to Swansea and going for £60m. 21% of £60m is £12.6m. So £12m is a reasonable estimate.
The club is now on an even footing. Winters can general profits easily by selling players earlier than normal and save £2m pa by closing or mothballing the academy.
The local owners are 10% owners and have 10% of the liability. If they contribute to ths share purchase they will get 10% of the dividends to cover their legal fees.
The Trust were reportedly asked to invest in the 2017 talks as a condition of the US people buying 50% of the Trusts shares. Remember the stadium expansion? The good old boys objected to this, it was reported by the US people. This was one of the sticking points. This is why I consider they are no use to the club.
They have made millions but declined to contribute anything cback into to the club. The request for a £4m donation was instructive in understanding their 'dependency' mindset which is prevalent in some sections of south Wales.
Selling a player is not to fill their pockets. Selling a player is to pay of the Trust's legal costs. If you want to believe the Trusts costs will have no effect on the running of the club you are deluded. I believe there will be significant redundancies of local hard working people as a result of a trust win in court. Judging by reactions members do not give a fig.
I wonder where you get the "they already have £70m to find" comment from? . What are you talking about? You seem to be assuming they borrowed money to buy the club. This is almost certainly not true.
After the Trust are gone the US people will own 90% of club worth £60m. They will have paid £78m for it. If the club get back to the PL the club will be worth £200m. Inflation affect both the the valuations and it is going upwards. The Trusts legal action weakens the clubs chances of promotion. This is why I am against legal action.
How Trust members believe their action is beneficial to the club in the long term beggars belief. They have not come up to expectations.
[Post edited 12 Nov 2020 12:21]
The bit about the stadium expansion - expand please.
0
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 13:30 - Nov 12 with 656 views
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:01 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
I am not a school teacher. £21m is big money but they will be using it to buy shares at the 'current market rate' which they can justify to their business partners. The excess £9m they will borow and pay off when Cabango or the lastest prodigy is sold.
The claim, I imagine would be against all the existing shareholders pro rata. So the local shareholder would have to contribute unless agreed otherwise. They unlike the Trust are not trying to run away.
The US people do not want to lumber ther partners with legal costs. The legal excess costs will therefore be covered by a loan and paid of by selling a player or other ecomonies like redundancies and closing the academy which Mr Winter will arrange.
£12m is the 'current market value' for the club. This is not wierd. Derby County is similar to Swansea and going for £60m. 21% of £60m is £12.6m. So £12m is a reasonable estimate.
The club is now on an even footing. Winters can general profits easily by selling players earlier than normal and save £2m pa by closing or mothballing the academy.
The local owners are 10% owners and have 10% of the liability. If they contribute to ths share purchase they will get 10% of the dividends to cover their legal fees.
The Trust were reportedly asked to invest in the 2017 talks as a condition of the US people buying 50% of the Trusts shares. Remember the stadium expansion? The good old boys objected to this, it was reported by the US people. This was one of the sticking points. This is why I consider they are no use to the club.
They have made millions but declined to contribute anything cback into to the club. The request for a £4m donation was instructive in understanding their 'dependency' mindset which is prevalent in some sections of south Wales.
Selling a player is not to fill their pockets. Selling a player is to pay of the Trust's legal costs. If you want to believe the Trusts costs will have no effect on the running of the club you are deluded. I believe there will be significant redundancies of local hard working people as a result of a trust win in court. Judging by reactions members do not give a fig.
I wonder where you get the "they already have £70m to find" comment from? . What are you talking about? You seem to be assuming they borrowed money to buy the club. This is almost certainly not true.
After the Trust are gone the US people will own 90% of club worth £60m. They will have paid £78m for it. If the club get back to the PL the club will be worth £200m. Inflation affect both the the valuations and it is going upwards. The Trusts legal action weakens the clubs chances of promotion. This is why I am against legal action.
How Trust members believe their action is beneficial to the club in the long term beggars belief. They have not come up to expectations.
[Post edited 12 Nov 2020 12:21]
- Clearly. - by your logic the £21mill will look like peanuts when we go up so the Americans won't need to sell anyone. - I'd be surprised if the sell outs were made to foot some of the bill (as a result of this case). Even without their backing the Americans could have bid for the trusts shares, but didn't (until later at unknown terms). So don't see how the sell outs can be culpable. Well several of them by your logic already have run away. Only 2 remain&1 hasn't attended a single board meeting since he was sacked&neither have invested anything since the sale. - I'm sure they wouldn't be happy with legal costs - of course they could always settle if they wanted to. - You keeping repeating these domesday scenarios about selling players to pay for the trusts shares (now your saying its just legal fees or excess will need paying back) but without any logic. Why would they pay for this out of Swansea City? They'll only weaken the club which could result in relegation and their shares would be worth a lot less. How would they get their original 70mill back then? Seems terrible business to me. Besides, these are wealthy people. I'm sure they've got the resources and nous to deal with this situation (which was all their own doing) without willingly harming a bid asset they have even further. - Well again random estimates. - Selling players early and down grading the academy? They've been doing that anyway! Absolutely no link to this legal action. - no the local owners won't have 10% liability because the trust aren't taking Swansea City to court. They are taking the Americans owners to court. Does this confuse you or is this a deliberate ploy to keep repeating that? - Hold on now, the Americans asked the trust to invest? Half the shares - at what rate? - Stadium expansion? What on earth are you on about now? Are you trying to say the trust stopped this happening!? Why didn't the Americans out vote them and do it? - you've deviated off now to random straw clutching I see. - How do you know they've declined to put anything back? None of the other shareholders did either. Again though you're confusing the trust with some investment fund for the football club. - Again they may do it. Evidence and logic suggests they won't. This blackmail tactic won't work sorry. - How does it weaken promotion? That's just yet more straw clutching and bet hedging. There are no fans in the ground and players will still receive their wages whatever happens. - never said they borrowed money to buy the club. Are you implying they wouldn't want it back? Surely same applies to that figure to the extra 21mill potentially coming their way? - How you think having owners who'll take money out of the football club to pay legal fees and bills because they were in the wrong is beggars belief. They told us they had the resources and desire to make us competitive (direct quote). They have - in a division below where they bought us - they have not come up to expectations. - -
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 13:30 - Nov 12 by Chief
- Clearly. - by your logic the £21mill will look like peanuts when we go up so the Americans won't need to sell anyone. - I'd be surprised if the sell outs were made to foot some of the bill (as a result of this case). Even without their backing the Americans could have bid for the trusts shares, but didn't (until later at unknown terms). So don't see how the sell outs can be culpable. Well several of them by your logic already have run away. Only 2 remain&1 hasn't attended a single board meeting since he was sacked&neither have invested anything since the sale. - I'm sure they wouldn't be happy with legal costs - of course they could always settle if they wanted to. - You keeping repeating these domesday scenarios about selling players to pay for the trusts shares (now your saying its just legal fees or excess will need paying back) but without any logic. Why would they pay for this out of Swansea City? They'll only weaken the club which could result in relegation and their shares would be worth a lot less. How would they get their original 70mill back then? Seems terrible business to me. Besides, these are wealthy people. I'm sure they've got the resources and nous to deal with this situation (which was all their own doing) without willingly harming a bid asset they have even further. - Well again random estimates. - Selling players early and down grading the academy? They've been doing that anyway! Absolutely no link to this legal action. - no the local owners won't have 10% liability because the trust aren't taking Swansea City to court. They are taking the Americans owners to court. Does this confuse you or is this a deliberate ploy to keep repeating that? - Hold on now, the Americans asked the trust to invest? Half the shares - at what rate? - Stadium expansion? What on earth are you on about now? Are you trying to say the trust stopped this happening!? Why didn't the Americans out vote them and do it? - you've deviated off now to random straw clutching I see. - How do you know they've declined to put anything back? None of the other shareholders did either. Again though you're confusing the trust with some investment fund for the football club. - Again they may do it. Evidence and logic suggests they won't. This blackmail tactic won't work sorry. - How does it weaken promotion? That's just yet more straw clutching and bet hedging. There are no fans in the ground and players will still receive their wages whatever happens. - never said they borrowed money to buy the club. Are you implying they wouldn't want it back? Surely same applies to that figure to the extra 21mill potentially coming their way? - How you think having owners who'll take money out of the football club to pay legal fees and bills because they were in the wrong is beggars belief. They told us they had the resources and desire to make us competitive (direct quote). They have - in a division below where they bought us - they have not come up to expectations. - -
There is nothng complicated by my logic.
The Trust shares will cost £21m at the 2016 prices. These shares at todays value is £12m approximately. The existing board can buy these shares at that value. This is the "Championship value". This is a straight forward transaction. They will also need to pay the difference £9m.
The owners could take all the £21m from the club if they wanted to. They could indeed do this. As a minimum they would probably get the club to pay the £9m excess at least to avoid upsetting their fellow investors. A loan followed by the sale of one extra player would deal wth this.
Other options include redundancies and mothballing the academy. Increasing season tickets prices is a given. This would save £3m pa over 3 years. You must surely understand removing £21m from the clubs owners to the fan owned body will have consequences for the club and the fans?. The above scenario minimises this while being fair to US shareholders.
It was the Trust who called the legal action a 'last resort' and stated it would 'destabilise the club', not me. I am simply specualating what measures woud be taken to rectify this destabilisation. The US people will not simply dump the costs on their fellow investors in my opinion. They have always talked of 'sweating the asset'. Mr Cooper is doing this by using his contacts. Getting very good players in without paying transfer fees.
I assumed the Trust were considering the club owners to court not just the US owners. I am not a member and you may have more inforamation on this.
The US buyers in 2017 proposed to buy 50% of the Trust shares over a period and ask them to reinvest 20% £2m back into the club. Ths represents 10% of a £20m fund as reported in the Western mail. It was reported that this was a sticking point for some Trust members.
The US owners after completion of the Trusts shares will own over 90% of the club for an outlay of £80m. Annual dividend of say £2m would give their investors a return of 2.5% per annum which might help in keeping he investors happy.
Naturally the US investors will want their investment back £80m and that means staying in Swansea for the long term. After several year it is concievable they could get this valuation in the championship.
Talks are under way for a better share of TV rights and pay cap limits are under consideration. This will help profit margins. Interest rates are low and football inflation is quite high. Returning to the PL will be their aim and if that happens the will make a 100% profit. Swansea were within 2 games of achieivng it a few month ago. Fulham were no great shakes.
The selling price of £200m would only be suitable for overseas buyers from USA, Asia or the old Soviet Union. The Trust will be irrelevent. They were pretty irrelevant the moment Roberto Martinez agreed to return. This was frustrating and annoying for them as their holy mission was rendered bogus. They should have concentrated on making large amounts of money by cooperation with their partners and developing a completely different free market capitalist progressive mindset. Sadly this is not the Welsh way.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:15 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
There is nothng complicated by my logic.
The Trust shares will cost £21m at the 2016 prices. These shares at todays value is £12m approximately. The existing board can buy these shares at that value. This is the "Championship value". This is a straight forward transaction. They will also need to pay the difference £9m.
The owners could take all the £21m from the club if they wanted to. They could indeed do this. As a minimum they would probably get the club to pay the £9m excess at least to avoid upsetting their fellow investors. A loan followed by the sale of one extra player would deal wth this.
Other options include redundancies and mothballing the academy. Increasing season tickets prices is a given. This would save £3m pa over 3 years. You must surely understand removing £21m from the clubs owners to the fan owned body will have consequences for the club and the fans?. The above scenario minimises this while being fair to US shareholders.
It was the Trust who called the legal action a 'last resort' and stated it would 'destabilise the club', not me. I am simply specualating what measures woud be taken to rectify this destabilisation. The US people will not simply dump the costs on their fellow investors in my opinion. They have always talked of 'sweating the asset'. Mr Cooper is doing this by using his contacts. Getting very good players in without paying transfer fees.
I assumed the Trust were considering the club owners to court not just the US owners. I am not a member and you may have more inforamation on this.
The US buyers in 2017 proposed to buy 50% of the Trust shares over a period and ask them to reinvest 20% £2m back into the club. Ths represents 10% of a £20m fund as reported in the Western mail. It was reported that this was a sticking point for some Trust members.
The US owners after completion of the Trusts shares will own over 90% of the club for an outlay of £80m. Annual dividend of say £2m would give their investors a return of 2.5% per annum which might help in keeping he investors happy.
Naturally the US investors will want their investment back £80m and that means staying in Swansea for the long term. After several year it is concievable they could get this valuation in the championship.
Talks are under way for a better share of TV rights and pay cap limits are under consideration. This will help profit margins. Interest rates are low and football inflation is quite high. Returning to the PL will be their aim and if that happens the will make a 100% profit. Swansea were within 2 games of achieivng it a few month ago. Fulham were no great shakes.
The selling price of £200m would only be suitable for overseas buyers from USA, Asia or the old Soviet Union. The Trust will be irrelevent. They were pretty irrelevant the moment Roberto Martinez agreed to return. This was frustrating and annoying for them as their holy mission was rendered bogus. They should have concentrated on making large amounts of money by cooperation with their partners and developing a completely different free market capitalist progressive mindset. Sadly this is not the Welsh way.
- No they can't buy them for 12mill. It's going to cost them £21mill. - yes you keep repeating but it's not getting anymore logical. What makes this 21mill any different from the 70odd they've already spent which presumably you'd say they haven't been taking out of the club? - yes you keep repeating but not getting anymore logical. How's is then deliberately handicapping their shareprice by weakening our team going to help them get their outlay back? Let alone any profit. - yes and they have exhausted all avenues to get want they want and possibly entitled to. Destabilising back then when we had fans in the ground and were already fighting against the tide in the Prem is a very different landscape to now. - Why wouldn't they ask the other investors to chip in? There's enough of them. And this is no surprise. You are trying to shift the blame now from Mindy Kalling, or some dentists, Kaplan and Leveins lack of foresight and or under handedness onto the trust who are simply taking steps to retrieve what could well be rightfully theirs. - sweating the asset (we've already previous discussed how flawed a theory that is on another thread) is very different from literally plundering the club's funds for their own gain. - I have no further information on that. This isn't a criminal case (yet), but I'm no expert - the Americans paid for sell outs shares and not the trusts. - not sure what the relevance of that 50% story is. They are not the terms that the sell outs got. - Right so yes it's a long term thing but somehow you think the 21mill definitely won't be and they'll carry punitive measures to get that back alone. And thereby kill chances of getting the valuation back to 70mill! - the academy product well may well dry up quite soon. Theyve already sold a lot of the crown jewels. They can't sell loan players that don't belong to us. - there you go - your buddy inflation to the rescue. Apply what you keep saying about the trust to the Americans. As you say the club may increase in value even in this division with no need to steal club funds. - What 200mill price? You've been saying their irrelevant anyway. - when did martinez return? How was that annoying to the trust? - no they shouldn't have. They concentrated on being a supporters trust. Not a venture capitalist body. - haha is this a wind up!? Working with their partners!? The ones who went behind the trusts back to buy and sell shares!? - Are you Welsh then? Are some of the sell outs not Welsh then?
That last paragraph very much resembling the ramblings of a mad man.
For your next reply leave out repeating random statements the forum readers are getting bored. Instead of a these long rambling monologues try and specifics questions / that you keep ducking.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 15:15 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
There is nothng complicated by my logic.
The Trust shares will cost £21m at the 2016 prices. These shares at todays value is £12m approximately. The existing board can buy these shares at that value. This is the "Championship value". This is a straight forward transaction. They will also need to pay the difference £9m.
The owners could take all the £21m from the club if they wanted to. They could indeed do this. As a minimum they would probably get the club to pay the £9m excess at least to avoid upsetting their fellow investors. A loan followed by the sale of one extra player would deal wth this.
Other options include redundancies and mothballing the academy. Increasing season tickets prices is a given. This would save £3m pa over 3 years. You must surely understand removing £21m from the clubs owners to the fan owned body will have consequences for the club and the fans?. The above scenario minimises this while being fair to US shareholders.
It was the Trust who called the legal action a 'last resort' and stated it would 'destabilise the club', not me. I am simply specualating what measures woud be taken to rectify this destabilisation. The US people will not simply dump the costs on their fellow investors in my opinion. They have always talked of 'sweating the asset'. Mr Cooper is doing this by using his contacts. Getting very good players in without paying transfer fees.
I assumed the Trust were considering the club owners to court not just the US owners. I am not a member and you may have more inforamation on this.
The US buyers in 2017 proposed to buy 50% of the Trust shares over a period and ask them to reinvest 20% £2m back into the club. Ths represents 10% of a £20m fund as reported in the Western mail. It was reported that this was a sticking point for some Trust members.
The US owners after completion of the Trusts shares will own over 90% of the club for an outlay of £80m. Annual dividend of say £2m would give their investors a return of 2.5% per annum which might help in keeping he investors happy.
Naturally the US investors will want their investment back £80m and that means staying in Swansea for the long term. After several year it is concievable they could get this valuation in the championship.
Talks are under way for a better share of TV rights and pay cap limits are under consideration. This will help profit margins. Interest rates are low and football inflation is quite high. Returning to the PL will be their aim and if that happens the will make a 100% profit. Swansea were within 2 games of achieivng it a few month ago. Fulham were no great shakes.
The selling price of £200m would only be suitable for overseas buyers from USA, Asia or the old Soviet Union. The Trust will be irrelevent. They were pretty irrelevant the moment Roberto Martinez agreed to return. This was frustrating and annoying for them as their holy mission was rendered bogus. They should have concentrated on making large amounts of money by cooperation with their partners and developing a completely different free market capitalist progressive mindset. Sadly this is not the Welsh way.
You’ve ignored the two questions on your vague claim/point around the stadium expansion.
0
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:14 - Nov 12 with 624 views
"The Trust revealed, as part of the deal, they would also be asked to consider reinvesting 20% of the money received for the shares back into the club in the event of possible future stadium expansion. They did admit that details over this have not been fleshed out at this stage and would not be a guaranteed commitment."
"The Trust revealed, as part of the deal, they would also be asked to consider reinvesting 20% of the money received for the shares back into the club in the event of possible future stadium expansion. They did admit that details over this have not been fleshed out at this stage and would not be a guaranteed commitment."
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 12:16 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
Thank you kindly. I am glad you read my posts. What you think of them will change over time as you sort out your thoughts and judgements and the reality sinks in. I have been reading these forums for a decade and they tend to enhance prejudices and squash free thinking.
Uses of the word 'Yankee' 'sellout' 'Judas' 'pieces of silver' 'fill their pockets' are straight out of the Iranain ministry of information webpage. Propoganda takes many forms.
[Post edited 12 Nov 2020 12:22]
Really?
0
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:37 - Nov 12 with 606 views
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 16:02 - Nov 12 by Chief
- No they can't buy them for 12mill. It's going to cost them £21mill. - yes you keep repeating but it's not getting anymore logical. What makes this 21mill any different from the 70odd they've already spent which presumably you'd say they haven't been taking out of the club? - yes you keep repeating but not getting anymore logical. How's is then deliberately handicapping their shareprice by weakening our team going to help them get their outlay back? Let alone any profit. - yes and they have exhausted all avenues to get want they want and possibly entitled to. Destabilising back then when we had fans in the ground and were already fighting against the tide in the Prem is a very different landscape to now. - Why wouldn't they ask the other investors to chip in? There's enough of them. And this is no surprise. You are trying to shift the blame now from Mindy Kalling, or some dentists, Kaplan and Leveins lack of foresight and or under handedness onto the trust who are simply taking steps to retrieve what could well be rightfully theirs. - sweating the asset (we've already previous discussed how flawed a theory that is on another thread) is very different from literally plundering the club's funds for their own gain. - I have no further information on that. This isn't a criminal case (yet), but I'm no expert - the Americans paid for sell outs shares and not the trusts. - not sure what the relevance of that 50% story is. They are not the terms that the sell outs got. - Right so yes it's a long term thing but somehow you think the 21mill definitely won't be and they'll carry punitive measures to get that back alone. And thereby kill chances of getting the valuation back to 70mill! - the academy product well may well dry up quite soon. Theyve already sold a lot of the crown jewels. They can't sell loan players that don't belong to us. - there you go - your buddy inflation to the rescue. Apply what you keep saying about the trust to the Americans. As you say the club may increase in value even in this division with no need to steal club funds. - What 200mill price? You've been saying their irrelevant anyway. - when did martinez return? How was that annoying to the trust? - no they shouldn't have. They concentrated on being a supporters trust. Not a venture capitalist body. - haha is this a wind up!? Working with their partners!? The ones who went behind the trusts back to buy and sell shares!? - Are you Welsh then? Are some of the sell outs not Welsh then?
That last paragraph very much resembling the ramblings of a mad man.
For your next reply leave out repeating random statements the forum readers are getting bored. Instead of a these long rambling monologues try and specifics questions / that you keep ducking.
[Post edited 12 Nov 2020 16:05]
I am not a school teacher but try at east to educate. I have answered all your questions clearly but you seem to be getting increasing confused. I like to think I can understand how the US people would approach things better than you can. You do not seem even to understand the difference between civil and criminal court cases.
A league two struggling team in league is the ideal position for a Trust take owner and £12m will go quite a long way. Swansea city "The new community owned powerhouse in the West to rival Exeter city". I will not be going.
Hopefully my challenging posts will encourage you to do some reading.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:37 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
I am not a school teacher but try at east to educate. I have answered all your questions clearly but you seem to be getting increasing confused. I like to think I can understand how the US people would approach things better than you can. You do not seem even to understand the difference between civil and criminal court cases.
A league two struggling team in league is the ideal position for a Trust take owner and £12m will go quite a long way. Swansea city "The new community owned powerhouse in the West to rival Exeter city". I will not be going.
Hopefully my challenging posts will encourage you to do some reading.
- tremendously patronising paragraph there with no actual evidence to back up those claims. Lucky you aren't a teacher. I don't think even impressionable kids would fall for the nonsense you peddle. - intriguing / tantalising comment there about you understanding US people better. It seems we are getting to the root of your crusade. The mask has slipped. - You won't be going to Exeter? - Don't have a little tantrum now because you've been exposed and pretty much every outlandish claim you've made has been countered successfully. Just concede with grace.
"The Trust revealed, as part of the deal, they would also be asked to consider reinvesting 20% of the money received for the shares back into the club in the event of possible future stadium expansion. They did admit that details over this have not been fleshed out at this stage and would not be a guaranteed commitment."
[Post edited 12 Nov 2020 17:15]
Where does that say the trust prevented stadium expansion? I’ve read it 20 times and don’t understand where you get that from.
0
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:01 - Nov 12 with 566 views
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 17:44 - Nov 12 by Chief
- tremendously patronising paragraph there with no actual evidence to back up those claims. Lucky you aren't a teacher. I don't think even impressionable kids would fall for the nonsense you peddle. - intriguing / tantalising comment there about you understanding US people better. It seems we are getting to the root of your crusade. The mask has slipped. - You won't be going to Exeter? - Don't have a little tantrum now because you've been exposed and pretty much every outlandish claim you've made has been countered successfully. Just concede with grace.
You are not well read and do not understand the differnece between civil and criminal law. You can only work this out for yourself by reading more. There is no polite way of putting it I am afraid. It did not stop you arguing 'beyond you pay grade' or calling me a 'mad man'.
I genuinely believe some Trust people do want Swansea to go back to the old days and play as a community owned team in Leagues 1 and 2. This team will be owned and run by the Trust as is Exeter city.
I do not know US people better. I simply understand the waty they think better than you do simply from reading the busness pages of the broadsheets.
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:08 - Nov 12 by ReslovenSwan1
You are not well read and do not understand the differnece between civil and criminal law. You can only work this out for yourself by reading more. There is no polite way of putting it I am afraid. It did not stop you arguing 'beyond you pay grade' or calling me a 'mad man'.
I genuinely believe some Trust people do want Swansea to go back to the old days and play as a community owned team in Leagues 1 and 2. This team will be owned and run by the Trust as is Exeter city.
I do not know US people better. I simply understand the waty they think better than you do simply from reading the busness pages of the broadsheets.
- haha here we go again. Lost the argument so reaching for insults now. - what's your sudden fascination with Exeter? Why would the trust want us to go to league 2? You aren't making sense. - haha "because you read the business pages of broadsheets". Are you a parody account!?
Inflation and the Swansea city Supporters Trust on 21:41 - Nov 12 by Chief
- haha here we go again. Lost the argument so reaching for insults now. - what's your sudden fascination with Exeter? Why would the trust want us to go to league 2? You aren't making sense. - haha "because you read the business pages of broadsheets". Are you a parody account!?
Just another Dimi. File under sh*t monkey
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
